PDF Version

March

16, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 69

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne ) : Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

recognize in the public gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly,

Mr. George Murphy.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, in the public gallery,

we have representatives from Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador for the reading

of a Ministerial Statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well, we have Mr. Glen

Nolan, President, and Mr. Perry Feltham, Vice-President of the United

Steelworkers Local 9316.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the Speaker's gallery

today we have Mackenzie Dove and Charlie Byrne. MacKenzie is Miss Newfoundland

and Labrador 2017. She is the subject of a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

On behalf of all Members of

the House of Assembly, we pass along condolences to the Opposition House Leader

on the passing of his mother.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well, in the Speaker's

gallery, we have Mr. Kevin Collins and his wife Karen. Many of you know Kevin.

He used to work in Broadcast and, for many years, sat up here overlooking all

Members of the House of Assembly. Kevin has retired after 37 years of the House

of Assembly on January 31.

Thirty

of those years that Kevin had, of his 37, were spent in the House of Assembly.

He served under 11 Speakers, 10 premiers, and most Members of the House of

Assembly will recognize Kevin for his work in the Legislative Library and

Broadcast Services.

earlier years, prior to our proceedings, as I said, Kevin sat up above and would

be listening in probably sat in more sessions of the House of Assembly than

any Member here, including myself, and I've been here a long time. So Kevin has

seen a lot and heard a lot, and while not participating we welcome him to come

and join us on the floor perhaps to participate; something to think about he

controlled the microphones for Members.

I know

all Members join me in wishing Kevin a very happy retirement. I understand for

the very first time on Saturday he's going to Florida. I don't know if that's a

sign that he's no longer got the stress of working, or if he's got nothing else

to do, but happy retirement, Kevin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

By the way, I made an offer

to Kevin earlier today; his old haunt, as I said, is just above us. I said if he

ever comes back to visit us again, I'll allow him to put a chair up here and sit

down and look upon the House as he always did.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the District of Lewisporte Twillingate; Fogo Island

Cape Freels; Conception Bay East Bell Island; Placentia West Bellevue; Terra

Nova; and Conception Bay South.

The hon.

the Member for District of Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, on March 5 a

crew of sealers from Summerford, New World Island, were forced to abandon their

ship off the Northeast Coast of the Island amidst 60 knots of winds and

eight-metre swells.

The crew

of the Northern Provider includes

Frank Brown, Junior Brown, Dion Rideout, Lorne Hawkins and the skipper is Brian

Anstey. Brian, a veteran skipper, said he had never seen weather conditions as

bad as the ones he faced that day. He compared it the movie

The Perfect Storm .

As the

weather conditions deteriorated to a life-threatening degree, Skipper Brian

contacted the Canadian Coast Guard and arranged for a helicopter to come and

rescue them. One by one they jumped into the icy waters to be carried to safety

by the helicopter that hovered over them.

This was

the first time that this particular Coast Guard crew had attempted helicopter

rescue, and they succeeded in rescuing every member of the

Northern Provider .

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in thanking the Canadian Coast Guard

for its training and its heroism and in celebrating the safe return of these

sealers to their families.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fogo Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, it's always a

pleasure to rise and inform every one of the good news stories from my historic

district. The grade four and five students from Lumsden Academy are giving

Mother Nature a helping hand.

The

students have been involved in a unique project of installing bird nesting boxes

on hydro poles. The students hope that Woodpeckers and other wood-boring birds

will be enticed to use the nesting boxes rather than boring holes into the

utility poles.

It was

noticed that these birds have bored into numerous poles along a three-kilometre

stretch from Deadman's Bay to Lumsden. It's no surprise these birds have taken

up home in the utility poles;

whereas the forest growth is limited and small in

the area. Over 60 boxes will be installed over a two-year period.

These

students are looking forward to their next project. They are currently involved

with Ducks Unlimited and the Town of Lumsden. Their next plan to aid the local

ducks by installing nesting boxes for waterfowl. This is an excellent example of

giving nature a helping hand.

I ask

all Members to join me in extending our gratitude.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand today to recognize the passing of a man who provided a valued

service in my district. I speak of master mariner the late Captain Walter

Stratton who, for nearly 40 years, provided ferry service to the people of Bell

Island.

Skipper

Walt, as he was affectionately and respectfully referred to as, started his

career aboard the MV Mineko, then the

Kipawo, John Guy, Catherine and

ultimately the workhorse of the service: the

Flanders. He was a respected captain by his counterparts and by all

who travelled the Tickle for his unwavering commitment to the travellers to

ensure their safety to and from Bell Island.

Captain

Walt had served in Korea during the Korean conflict and served as a mentor to

many a young crew member. He instilled in his children and grandchildren values

of commitment and dedication. Skipper Walt was also devoted to this wife Myra,

their family, his country, his employer and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask

all Members of this House to join me in passing our condolences to Myra and

their family.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, on February 11,

I had the great pleasure of attending the 10th annual Cory Kenway classic

basketball tournament, hosted at Christ the King School in Rushoon.

Each

year, this basketball tournament is held in memory of Cory, who was killed in

2004 as a result of an alcohol-rated motor vehicle crash. Cory's untimely and

senseless death, however, was not in vain, Mr. Speaker, as his parents, Randy

and Julie, work tirelessly with MADD Burin Peninsula

chapter as well as MADD

Canada as partners to raise awareness for this very preventable cause of death.

To be in

Rushoon that day with his family and friends to make this 10th anniversary was

very inspirational, as the strength and love for Cory spilled into the gymnasium

present in all players and organizers. Making the tournament even more special,

Mr. Speaker, was that for the first time in the history of this Cory Kenway

Classic, the host team, the Christ the King School Crusaders, came away as the

tournament winners.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the participants

and the organizers of the 2017, 10th annual Cory Kenway Classic and remind all

people of Newfoundland and Labrador that driving while impaired is a serious

action and a choice that impacts families forever.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pride to rise in this hon. House today and recognize the accomplishments

of a young woman from my district. At the young age of 21 years, Mackenzie Dove,

a resident of Clarenville, has had a very active and accomplished life.

Mackenzie has a very impressive resume. She is a second year pharmacy student at

Memorial University of Newfoundland. Mackenzie has dedicated her time and talent

to support many volunteer organizations and worthwhile causes including: the

Clarenville area SPCA; Ronald McDonald House; Canadian Cancer Society; and,

Suncor Energy Fluvarium.

Mackenzie is the co-chair of the St. John's Relay for Life and she was the

President of Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth Parliament for 2016. This young

lady has a long list of accomplishments, including being awarded Miss

Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador in 2013-2014, and in 2016 the YMCA's Young

Woman of Distinction.

February 26, 2017, Mackenzie Dove was crowned Miss Newfoundland and Labrador

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HOLLOWAY:

After receiving this honour,

Mackenzie commented: To me, Miss Newfoundland and Labrador is a role model,

inspiration and, above all, a representative for all the outstanding and strong

women of our province.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Mackenzie Dove on her

accomplishments, her leadership and her passion for helping others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Town of Conception Bay South is home to many of this province's

finest athletes. On March 9, I had the pleasure of attending the 2016

Athlete/Coach of the Year and Sports Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony at the Manuels

River

Interpretation Centre.

During

the evening, their achievements were emphasized along with the important role

that sport has played in the development of youth and adults alike within our

great town.

Mr.

Speaker, all the nominees for the five award categories were honoured and the

following individuals were the recipients of the 2016 awards: Coach of the Year,

Mr. David Coates; Junior Male Athlete of the Year, Daniel Hogarth; Junior Female

Athlete of the Year, Haley Dalton; Senior Male Athlete of the Year, Stephen

Rideout; and Senior Female Athlete of the Year was Jessica Davis.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Sports Hall of Fame inductees:

Alice Gear, Andrea Lee-Coffin, Margaret Noftle, Paul Smith and Valerie

Haines-Dalton who have all contributed tremendously to our sporting community.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating all the

recipients and nominees of the 2016 Conception Bay South Athletic Awards.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Friday, March 24, as Purple Day for epilepsy in Newfoundland

and Labrador, a worldwide event that first started here in Atlantic Canada.

Cassidy

Megan from Nova Scotia organized the first Purple Day at her elementary school

after being diagnosed in 2008. Her goal was to get people talking about epilepsy

and help those who experienced seizures feel less alone.

Although

the House will not be in session on March 24, I call on my colleagues to observe

Purple Day in their districts and wear purple, the internationally recognized

colour for epilepsy.

In the

week leading up to Purple Day, our government will Light it up Purple with

Confederation Building scheduled to be lit from March 19 to March 26.

Epilepsy

affects over 10,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador and approximately 50

million people around the world.

Purple

Day plays a big

part in helping to further our understanding about epilepsy,

reduce stigma and improve the quality of life for people living with epilepsy.

I invite

this House and all residents of our province to participate in Purple Day and

support those who live with epilepsy every day.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

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

recognizing Purple Day for epilepsy as we have proudly done in the past and will

continue to do in the future.

Epilepsy

Newfoundland and Labrador was founded in 1983 and represents more than 10,000

women, men, children and their families who are living with epilepsy. So while

we recognize Purple Day, let us also recognize those who support the epilepsy

community in our province. Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador offers its members

a wide range of programs and services. The association is funded by donations,

100 per cent of which remain in the province to help develop programs and

services dedicated to the promotion of independence and the quality of life for

all people with epilepsy and their families.

please give generously towards their great work and please support Purple Day

next Friday.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted to stand

today and wish congratulations to Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador for their

work in dispelling the myths about epilepsy. Last year they asked grade four

students to learn about epilepsy and contribute pictures to a calendar; they

also have an ask the doctors program with regular sessions. Understanding is

key; everyone should make the effort to learn more. Let's support the work of

Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to announce that Budget 2017 will be

delivered on Thursday, April 6.

Newfoundland and Labrador continues to face a very serious financial situation,

and our government is focused on strong fiscal management. We have established

financial targets and are committed to achieving them, as was recently evident

in our fall fiscal and economic update, with a lower deficit projection for the

current fiscal year than was projected in Budget 2016.

Over the

past year, Mr. Speaker, our government has been working to lower spending,

create a leaner and more efficient public service, and create a more modern and

effective government. Budget 2017 will demonstrate our government's continued

commitment to sound fiscal management in light of the difficult finances we

face.

The Way Forward: A Vision for

Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador

sets ambitious long-term

goals to improve our province while facing our fiscal realities and provides

tangible actions to achieve these goals. These goals include achieving deficit

reduction targets, eliminating excess, and employing an overall approach that

ensures all spending decisions are justified on a year-over-year basis.

Mr.

Speaker, we have seen our Way Forward plan in action over the past few months

through strategic announcements such as $77.2 million for our five-year

provincial roads plan; $100 million for our three-year municipal infrastructure

program, which includes $70 million for multi-year capital works and $30 million

for municipal capital works. We've seen progress on the replacement of Western

Memorial Regional Hospital, and the announcement of a long-term care home in

Corner Brook.

I look

forward to April 6 when our government will lay out Budget 2017 for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will outline our actions to date while

maintaining our commitment to return to surplus in 2022-23.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I'd like to thank the

minister for the advance copy of her statement. While the people of the province

all wait for Budget 2017, they're still dealing with the impacts of

Budget 2016 . Budget 2016

clearly demonstrated that the Liberal government has no plan and, in doing so,

it drove many people in this province into unnecessary hardships.

The

personal tax increases, the Liberal levy, corporate income tax increases,

increases to fees, along with the cuts to services have driven our province into

a recession this year the only province in Canada. Mr. Speaker, we're not the

only ones saying that. The Conference Board of Canada, in their provincial

report, has pointed to the actions in

Budget 2016 as the primary reason why this province's economy will shrink

this year.

As we

wait for Budget 2017, I truly hope that the Liberal government will make more

thoughtful decisions and avoid the lazy decisions which we saw in

Budget 2016.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It's good to get such a

quick reply to my colleague's question yesterday, and good the people have a

date and a chance to brace themselves for what promises to be another brutal

budget.

In her

statement, the minister mentions a few good things to come; I guess we will have

to wait for April 6 for the bad news. In the meantime, I ask the minister: Does

this announcement mean we have two more weeks debating Interim Supply?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision, known as Jordan, set time

limits for court cases to be concluded. So I ask the minister today: How many

cases have been stayed or dismissed due to the Jordan case ruling so far?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand here and speak to the Justice Department. The Jordan decision was

a significant one one that the repercussions and impacts are being felt all

over this country and certainly they're being felt here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. As people may or may not know, it actually imposed hard-and-fast time

limits on handling cases in the criminal system: 18 months in one court and 30

months in our Superior Court.

Right

now, after meeting with our director of Public Prosecutions very recently, I

believe the number that we have dealt with is in the range of 10 to 12, I

understand.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I

think what the minister said 10 to 12 cases have been dismissed as a result of

Jordan.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I didn't say dismissed; I

said dealt with.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Well, maybe the minister can

clarify, Mr. Speaker. The question was: How many cases have been stayed or

dismissed as a result of the Jordan court ruling?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly didn't say that 10 were dismissed; I said we've actually had 10 to 12

altogether that we've dealt with. I think right now it's about and I may be

wrong here, but I'd be happy to report back to this House after meeting with the

director of Public Prosecutions whose office is responsible for this. I think

that we're batting about 50 per cent on these right now.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure what that means. My question was how many cases have been stayed or

dismissed and the minister hasn't provided that, or maybe if he can get it, he

can provide it for us.

understanding is there are approximately 14 homicide cases currently before the

courts in Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister can correct that if he has a

more accurate number. Also, we're hearing concerns that several of these have

very tight deadlines.

I ask

the minister: Are there any risks with these cases? Any risks that any of these

cases may be thrown out or dismissed as a result of Jordan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right

now, I believe we are handling in the range of 14 active murder files, which is

certainly a very high number. A number of these were certainly in the system

prior to the Jordan system. Many of them have been around for some time. After

meeting with our director of Public Prosecutions, I haven't been advised that

any are in jeopardy of coming under the Jordan application rule.

What I

need to put out there to the people of this province, every province in this

country is dealing with this. While we are dealing with about 10 cases, I

believe in Quebec they're actually dealing with over 200 cases that are facing

this Jordan scrutiny.

The fact

is that most of these cases we are dealing with, these were in the system when I

actually came in here. What we're doing, we can't deal with what was pre-Jordan.

I can't come in and say what things should have been done. What we are doing as

the Department of Justice is making sure that all files, since Jordan, are

handled appropriately and with the Jordan application rule in mind.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do

appreciate the stress that's been put on the system as a result of Jordan a

system that has already been stressed; we're quite aware of that.

This

week, more charges, high-level charges, cocaine trafficking, in fact, were

dismissed in the courts here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I ask

the minister: Other than the justice summit event that he's talked about

publicly coming up, what actions have been taken by the minister to ensure that

no other cases are dismissed or thrown out of the courts because of court delays

according to Jordan's rules?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly there was a case that was dealt with yesterday, one that I think

stemmed from 2014, before I ever got in this position. We are taking a number of

steps now in the Department of Justice. The first one is our director of Public

Prosecutions has met with our police forces to talk about the need for a timely

exposure of evidence, timely disclosure of evidence. What we're also dealing

with is different policies and procedures when it comes to granting adjournments

in matters. We're trying to get matters through the system.

What

we're doing, something that actually hasn't been done in over a decade, is

actually bring all the people in the justice system together, whether it's the

judiciary, sheriffs, Crowns, Legal Aid, private bar, Justice Minister, federal

counterparts. We're going to put everybody in a room and have a talk about the

criminal justice system because it wasn't done prior to my getting in this

position, but these are things we're trying to do to ensure that we live within

the Jordan timelines.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at

a time, as we said, when the entire justice system is under extreme pressure and

while the minister is planning to bring all the stakeholders together, the

Liberal government eliminated 22 positions in the Department of Justice before

that event gathering has even taken place.

So I ask

the minister: What impacts will these 22 eliminated positions have on our

current, very stressed justice system in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't

that long ago that we stood in the House and the Member opposite was part of a

government that went out and cut the justice system and then, two days later,

flip-flopped on the decision because he hadn't bothered to talk to anybody or

actually, changed the name of the department and then two days later changed it

back; flip-flopped on that because he hadn't asked anybody about that.

What I

can tell you: no cuts to judges, no cuts to Legal Aid, no cuts to Crown

prosecutors, no cuts to anything within the court system that's going to affect

these cases. What we actually do on this side when we're in charge of the

Justice Department is we actually talk to the people in the system to make sure

that it runs as efficiently as possible, and certainly not without the

challenges that the other side faced because they didn't have the time to talk

to the people actually doing the work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

wondering if that's what they did when they closed the courts in the province

and reversed those decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, Jordan came

along in 2016 and, since that time, they've also made further cuts. So they can

talk about the previous administration, which they like to do, but they made

cuts after Jordan.

So I ask

the minister: In light of the ruling and the fact that the province's justice

system is very stressed and strained at this point in time; will you commit to

ensure that the justice system has all the resources needed to function

appropriately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

have always been pressures within the Justice Department. In fact, I read the

minutes of the Law Society from their 1893 meeting this morning where they

talked about the pressures they faced because they had a courthouse that wasn't

up to snuff. Certainly that's a pressure we felt. I know the previous

administration announced a courthouse and then forgot to actually put any money

into that.

Again,

we talk about the courthouse out in Harbour Grace that actually was left to rot

left to rot and nothing happening. Again, that's something else we had to

come in and deal with. But thankfully, we had the Jordan decision come in and it

helped us make those decisions there.

The fact

is we've added extra resources to deal with the pressures that come from the

Jordan decision one that's affecting every jurisdiction across this country.

But what I'll continue to do, something that wasn't done previously under the

revolving door of Justice ministers that they had, was I'll continue to talk to

the people that do the work and make sure that their thoughts and views are

heard.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, today in media

reports we're learning that the future of the Bull Arm fabrication site is

unknown.

I ask

the minister: Have you had any discussions with Nalcor officials regarding the

future of this site?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pardon

my voice; I have a bit of a cold today.

I'd be

happy to advise the House that yes, I've had multiple discussions with Nalcor on

the Bull Arm site. As the people of the province know, we're coming to the

conclusion of the Hebron, wonderful Hebron Project.

The Bull

Arm site is under lease until March of 2018. We wanted to get out there early to

make sure we talk to as many people as possible, get an expression of interest,

to see what interest there is to use the Bull Arm site for further work, and

that's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. We've allocated time and we've allocated

resources to searching worldwide to bring more work to the Bull Arm.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I have some Fisherman's

Friends I'll share with you, if it helps. I feel your pain today.

I have

to ask the minister: Are there conditions under which she would support selling

the site?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

And thank you to the hon.

Member for the offer, I may take him up on that.

We're

going global to ask what to ask the global community under an expression of

interest, what they would like to use the site for, how we can lease that site.

If someone comes forward with an opportunity to buy that site, we'll certainly

consider it. It is an expression of interest, Mr. Speaker, so we are considering

all the different avenues.

We are

searching globally. We want to make sure that whatever we do is in the best

interest of the province, Mr. Speaker, and we'll continue to monitor and review

these expressions of interest before we go to a request for proposals.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

So the minister has just

confirmed that the Bull Arm Fabrication site is indeed on the market.

I ask

the minister: Is this the start of a fire sale, a sell-off of Nalcor assets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing

of the sort. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what was in the plans for the former

administration. Perhaps they had none, which they often did not have any plan to

do anything with the assets of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we are being very responsible. We're going out a year before the lease

is up with the Hebron Project, to go out and search globally to get expressions

of interest of what could be done with the Bull Arm site. There are multitudes

of opportunities out there. We're going to do what's in the best interest of the

province. It's an expression of interest to see how we can continue to work with

the Bull Arm site.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, if the asset is

indeed sold, that will limit the potential for future economic development

activities.

So to

avoid selling the asset: Will the minister put conditions on any future oil

developments that the fabrication of rigs and equipment must be done in this

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

The number one goal of this

government, Mr. Speaker, the number one goal of this government is to keep and

continue to employ the people of this province through great private sector,

great opportunities in the economy.

As the

Member opposite knows, we have benefits agreements with oil and gas companies.

We have been very fortunate this year in attracting seven new entrants seven,

Mr. Speaker, new entrants in exploration offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

We're going to continue to work very diligently, very smartly to ensure that

this is the best place in the world for offshore oil and gas development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the seven

entrants came as a result of the seismic work conducted by the previous

administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

We've been recently made

aware of cuts to the provincial drug program, seriously impacting some cancer

patients in this province.

Can the

minister confirm that some cancer patients are being denied coverage of

Neupogen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you for the question. The issue of chemotherapy drug treatment for cancer in

palliative, end-of-life patients is a very emotional issue. It's fraught with

clinical and ethical issues.

What I

can say unequivocally is that any clinician who feels a patient, who needs

Neupogen, can apply and the patient will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, that response is

problematic. While I thank the minister for the answer, I can't accept it.

Can the

minister confirm that there were changes made to the criteria for special

authorization for Neupogen in December? As a result, many people who would have

been covered before December will now not be covered?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The first part of that

statement is correct, the second is not.

The

correction to the guidelines for the drug, line it up with Atlantic drug review

and refer to patients receiving chemotherapy for curative intent.

Again,

for the House, any clinician who feels their patient would benefit from Neupogen

can apply and will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, if that were

true, why are we hearing of cases where patients over the last couple of months

have been denied?

Neupogen

is considered a vital medication by cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. It

can extend life and, just as important, provide them with a better quality of

life during treatment.

How can

the minister justify denying people this comfort and dignity?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, for clarity, for

the third time, any clinician who feels their patient would benefit from

Neupogen can apply through special authorization, a process the minister

opposite put in place or his predecessor, it's not changed. The criteria that

have changed are around curative intent only. It's available if a clinician

needs it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, if what the

minister is saying was true, why would the criteria for special authorization

have changed in December? The side effect Neupogen treats is a decrease in

neutrophils, white blood cells responsible for immunity. Without the drug,

immunity can drop to where the patient can easily contract a dangerous infection

and chemo treatments are missed.

Minister, patients need this drug. Now, as a result of changes that did get made

in December, less people are going to get this drug. Can you please fix that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

For clarity, Mr. Speaker, any

clinician who feels their patient, palliative chemotherapy, requires Neupogen

and will benefit from it, they will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

There it is, Mr. Speaker, who

will benefit from it. The changes to special authorization criteria have been

made because a determination has been made about which patients will benefit

from this drug.

The

spouse of an impacted patient said that government seems to be saying if you're

going to die anyway, we're not going to waste our money on you.

How can

the minister put less value on individuals considered terminal? This callus

action is beyond disgusting, and I will call on government once again to reverse

this terrible decision immediately.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I think there may have been a

question in there, Mr. Speaker. But, quite frankly, I think the gentleman is

making hay with a very unfortunate group of people and I would call him out on

that.

The

situation, quite simply, is that if a clinician feels a patient will benefit,

they will get it. He's not surely suggesting that we should give drugs to

anybody if they're not going to benefit from it, because that's the message I

took from there and that is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I'm not making hay, Mr.

Speaker. I'm exposing a decision that the minister made that's affecting

patients' lives and will result in less people getting the coverage they need.

Why

won't you consider the evidence being presented by some of our province's

oncologists? Why won't you consider the evidence being presented by Janet

Edmonds and others in our province with lived experience, who have been affected

by the decision that was made in December on his watch?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

This is precisely the group

we've listened to: the oncologists. They recommended changing the criteria for

curative intent only. Again, for clarity, any patient in palliative care who

needs Neupogen in the opinion of their physician, and will benefit from it, will

get it. I really can't make it any clearer than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken to

patients who could benefit from this drug who will now be denied access as a

result of the minister's decision. In fact, I spoke to a cancer survivor this

morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Without this treatment, she

would not have been able to spend quality time with her children and her immune

system would be so low. This drug boosts your immune system and helps fight off

infections and prepare you for your next round of treatment, even if you are

terminal, Mr. Speaker.

Time is

of the essence when you're a terminal cancer patient. Minister, you have the

ability to make this right. I'll ask you one more time: Will you make this right

and reverse the change that you made in December?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite really has failed to grasp a simple statement that it is a clinical

decision. I am not prescribing anything for anybody and nor should he, neither

of us have a licence. The decision as to who prescribes medication for patients

and what medication they get is based on clinical advice. Medical, oncological

best practice, not political haymaking in this House. It's down to the

clinician, always was, will be and we have not changed that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this government promised to make decisions based on evidence and take

the politics out of decision making. Will the Premier show us the evidence

beyond the decision to move Crown Lands to Corner Brook? What is the real

reason?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Department of Fisheries and Land Resources will have the relocation of the Crown

Lands office in Corner Brook and it was done with the intent that the

agriculture Lands Branch is in Corner Brook. There are significant operations

there. There are natural synergies the announcement that was made recently

about expanding agricultural land for economic development here in the province.

There

are synergies and there are reasons why we would move the Crown Lands office to

Corner Brook to be with the Lands Branch in that office, the headquarters in

that building.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

guess based on that response, I'll ask this question: The government told the

public Crown Lands were moving to Corner Brook to be near the majority of

agriculture and forestry activity in the province. We have been told, however,

that in recent years there were more agricultural applications on the Avalon

than all other regions combined.

Can you

confirm this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries

and Lands Resources Branch that would be in the Corner Brook office, where it is

headquartered, is where the staff would be located, where they're making these

decisions. But when it comes to the day-to-day service, the counter services, we

would still have counter service in St. John's, in Clarenville, in Gander, in

Grand Falls-Windsor, in Corner Brook and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to provide

the services for people that require them when it comes to the applications.

As part

of the relocation process, there's going to be no impact on our Crown land

records. This is about making better decisions. There's mapping; this is a way

of bringing together the synergies that exist within the Department of Fisheries

and Land Resources to make better use of government resources.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: What is the status of the schools in Coley's Point and Shoal

Harbour?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

December 2015, following the swearing in of Cabinet, I became aware of a number

of school capacity issues that had been failed to be addressed by the previous

administration. We set about immediately trying to find timely, practical,

cost-effective ways to deal with those issues. As Members would know, there are

a number of capital projects that were placed on hold for last year's budget.

family of schools in the Clarenville area to look at solutions for Riverside

Elementary, which has received additional modular classrooms to help with the

over-capacity issue at that school that the previous administration had failed

to deal with.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

So just to clarify, we had

committed to it and had budgeted for particularly those two schools and a number

of other schools, but that wasn't having a plan in place. But obviously, the

minister's not ready

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

to address overcrowding in

those particular areas.

So, Mr.

Speaker, educators, parents and students of Mobile, Witless Bay have been told

that the government will not build a new facility for their children.

What was

the Liberal's rationale behind making that decision?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, this previous

administration, on the way out the door, budgeted some one-quarter billion

dollars' worth of new school constructions, extensions, et cetera, et cetera.

It's the stuff of fairy tales that you hear in kindergarten classrooms because

there was no truth to any of that. Nothing was done. They failed to address

these capacity issues when they were in government.

When I

became minister, one of the first schools I visited was St. Bernard's Elementary

in Witless Bay. I immediately set upon trying to find a way in a timely,

practical and cost-effective measure to deal with the overcrowding out there.

Last year in the budget, we decided that an extension will be added to Mobile

Central High. There's going to be nine additional classrooms there. Through a

reconfiguration, the over-capacity issues will be dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

So I'm led to believe by the

minister that the three-quarters of a billion dollars that this administration

spent in building new schools, ensuring schools no longer had mould in their

schools and that they had the proper facilities for proper education was a waste

of money. Well, you know, I have to disagree with the minister here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

I also want to note, the

minister should be aware that the Mobile school area is a growth area. If you

check the latest census, it's a growth area. There's a need here for not just

building a few classrooms on, but be preparing for the future.

So I ask

the minister: A new school servicing Bay Bulls to Bauline East was part of the

Eastern School District's recommended five-year plan; who made the call to

cancel it was it the board, or was it your department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the fairy tale I

was referring to is the quarter-billion dollars' worth of new school

constructions, additions, extensions that never went ahead under their watch.

They threw it in the last budget to try to make over-capacity issues look like

they were being addressed, and they simply were not.

In last

year's budget, we had $105 million-or-so worth of capital projects for schools,

to finish constructing schools that were underway, to try to find solutions to

over-capacity issues, that that crowd did not address during their time in

office.

Every

year, the school districts provide proposals to the department, millions of

dollars' worth, that the department adjudicates based on timely, practical and

cost-effective solutions that we can put in place to address those issues.

That's what we've done with the family of schools in the Witless Bay-Mobile

area, and that's what we're doing with the others.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

recent announcement of more than 100 layoffs at the oil refinery in Come By

Chance is a serious blow to the laid off workers, their families and the economy

of the area.

I ask

the Premier: Has he or any of his ministers met with North Atlantic Refining

Limited in an attempt to stop the layoffs? If so, what was the outcome of these

efforts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

very difficult time for the workers of the North Atlantic refinery. We empathize

with them in this time. We've been working, I know under the Department of AESL,

to make sure that they have the supports they need.

Mr.

Speaker, we have met on a number of occasions with the refinery to encourage

them to continue their efforts in the province, to continue to add to their

employment levels and to continue to work here in this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I point

out to the minister that these workers are already qualified for the jobs that

they're doing. They want jobs.

I ask

the Premier: What is his plan to go to bat for these workers and the people in

the communities hurt by these layoffs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite is exactly right, these workers are very skilled and we are

certainly supportive of the efforts they have made in building the refinery.

We are

looking for additional work for everybody in this province and, in particular,

for those who have those skills that are so needed. That's why we're doing

things early with Bull Arm. That's why we're working very hard with the oil and

gas industry, with the mining industry, to continue to develop work here in the

province.

We're

hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this skilled workforce will have the opportunities

that they need in this province in very short order.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the remaining

employees of the refinery and their union, the United Steelworkers, have serious

concerns about how these layoffs affect safety in the facility.

I ask

the Minister of Service NL: Has there been a full safety inspection of the

refinery since the layoffs took effect?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

First of all, thank you very

much for the question.

I would

also say that, as with the Minister of Natural Resources, I recently also met

with company officials. I also want to assure everyone in the House, as I did

with the company of the day, that the North Atlantic Refining Limited is

obligated under all legislation dealing with occupational health and safety.

They need to comply with that on their operations.

Our

staff continue to do regular inspections, and we will continue to do so, to make

sure there's a safe environment at that refinery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, if in fact

that was done, what were the findings of the inspectors, and will the minister

make that report public immediately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

I may need to report back,

Mr. Speaker, because I'm not sure if such reports are available; but, as I said,

my staff are regularly making those inspections. Any complaints or any sort of

untoward activity and so on is investigated by our department.

I'll be

able to report back to the House as to whether or not this can be released.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Minister of Service NL: Will he commit to sharing these reports on an overall

safety inspection as a result of the layoffs, not just individual inspections

and reports of concerns, but an overall safety inspection due to the layoffs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

What I will assure the Member

opposite, Mr. Speaker, is that I will follow up with staff to confirm the

inspections are still going on, on a regular basis. If there are untoward, if

we're feeling there is pressure and the company is not fulfilling its

obligations, I certainly will be investigating and I will report back to the

House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a very quick question.

MS. ROGERS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Will he make those reports available publicly, to the union and to the

public, regardless of what is contained in them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Again, I will confer with

staff. But one thing I can assure the Member opposite and I can confirm with

both union and with the operator, that we take health and safety very seriously.

We're going to ensure that that legislation is followed. Our staff will continue

to do their inspections, and if there are situations or complaints that we need

to follow up on we will, and I will report back on what we can release.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We've got about 30

seconds left in Question Period, you'd better make it quick.

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, will

he publicly release the reports that are being asked for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL

MR. TRIMPER:

One thing I can assure

everyone in this House is that this government will not tolerate our workers

working in unsafe conditions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. TRIMPER:

So I will make sure that

Service NL does their job, and if we need to report back I will. I will get back

to the Member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question

Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House

today to present a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 implemented a regressive

tax on books in this province; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and

Labrador is the only province in the country to have such tax; and

WHEREAS

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

negatively impact local authors and publishers;

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

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

tax.

Mr.

Speaker, as every single resident of Newfoundland and Labrador knows, 2016 has

been one of the worst years we as a people have seen in over a decade, and in

large measure it is because of the economic shrinkage that has been imposed on

our province by the regressive measures of

Budget 2016 .

The book

tax they're all bad measures, and to see the Conference Board of Canada

indicating we're the only province in the country going into recession because

of the policy measures that were undertaken. Certainly, it's not the better

tomorrow we were promised, and it's far worse than any of us could have ever

imagined. We are targeting the people who least can afford it at all, Mr.

Speaker. The ones who have the least amount of money in their pockets are being

the ones who are asked to dig into their pockets and take out more.

When I

hear university students who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who have to

face the additional burden of accommodations and meals to try and get themselves

an education, come home and say, this term I spent an extra $700 on books.

That's food they could have put in their mouths that would have enabled them to

enjoy healthy living. We think it is totally unacceptable. It is hurting our

students, it is hurting our authors, it is hurting our book industry. It's yet

another of the many measures implemented by the Liberals that are putting this

province backwards by 20 or 30 years.

We're

going to reel from Budget 2016 for a

very long time, Mr. Speaker. We call upon government in Budget 2017 to start

fixing some of these regressive measures and to immediately cancel the book tax.

Thank

you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

many feel their problems and concerns are not being addressed in an appropriate

and timely manner;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly call upon the House of

Assembly, urging government to use all-party town hall events as an avenue

whereby people can express their concerns to all parties.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners ask to be heard.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand and raise these concerns that this

petition expresses. This petition today is being signed by people from, it looks

like, the Torbay area. All the signatures are coming from there.

What

it's pointing to, Mr. Speaker, is a real dissatisfaction in the province by

people, dissatisfaction because they do not feel that their voice is being heard

by government. Obviously, the so-called consultations that government does are

definitely not satisfying the people of the province and the people who are

signing these petitions that are coming to me.

They

also realize that our democratic process includes everybody who's been elected

by the people to sit in this House and to be part of the discussions in this

House relating to the legislation that government puts together, relating to

polices that government is creating. They want everybody in the House to be

involved in those discussions, which is an essential part of the democratic

process. And involving people through all-party events, all-party events by

standing committees would be a way of giving people an opportunity freely to

express what they have to say.

Many

people in the province are really looking at the dearth of democracy in our

province. I know that at the university some of the political scientists are

certainly looking at it. One thing that's been said by Stephen Tomblin, for

example, one of our political scientists, is that the Executive Branch

of government has a monopoly on how information is presented, and the voting

public has lost faith in government's ability to bring people together by

failing to provide a coherent understanding of what the problems are, and how

they're going to be addressed.

Now,

that's a pretty strong statement being made by one of our political scientists,

but the voting people have lost faith. That's why we see sometimes when

consultations are happening; we are not getting good turnouts. That happened,

for example, when the Members' Compensation Review Committee held their process

and held consultations. People want to express themselves, but they've given up

hope.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

organizations; and

WHEREAS

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

communities, as well as its youth and families; and

WHEREAS

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

funding for their day-to-day operations;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reinstate funding to the

province's youth organizations.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we already know that a number of youth organizations in this province

have taken a dramatic hit for the last year. Unfortunately, they only got notice

seven months into that year where they had already allocated their budgets;

they'd already spent money that they were anticipating would get. From their

perspective and the perspective of a lot of people, including a lot of civilian

servants that I had spoken to, this was core funding. It was part and parcel of

continuous funding they had gotten, in some cases, for 37 years, but all of a

sudden that was wiped out, or cut dramatically.

In those

cases, what happened, organizations had to not only try to recover the money

they've already spent and realign their budgets, but they also had to deal with

a shortfall. Now we're into a second fiscal situation here. As part of that,

they now have to budget again to make up the shortfall and the 60 per cent cut

in a lot of cases. It's just not possible.

In some

of these organizations, particularly the communities that they reside in, they

are part and parcel of what they do, the core, of providing services. They're

providing services at a tenth of the cost that it would cost government to do

it. So from a business point of view, the benefit to government investing with

these organizations or partnering with them is of very high benefit for the

taxpayers because we're getting a ten-fold return on our investment, plus we're

having people who are qualified to have a partnership developed between other

entities of municipal and federal governments, with other private sector

partners, to be able to provide those services.

From the

economy of scale, as has already been noted from the economists and the reports

that have been done, these organizations leverage anywhere from 4 per cent to 20

per cent return on their investment, so when we're giving them money not only

are we asking them to provide a valued service that they're capable of doing

not only capable, they're the professionals. They have the experience. They

have, in a lot of cases, national and international organizations who feed into

their training modes, new programs and services; how they best identify gaps in

services to young people; and how they develop their partnerships and how they

promote their programs.

So we

already have an entity in play that we should be not only partnering with, but

we should be actually investing more because if we invest in the frontend, we're

going to save dramatically on the backend. But for some reason, the exercise was

purely about cutting money without realizing the benefits here.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to present this numerous times over the next

few weeks and outline how this is a detriment to the people of this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union presents

new trade opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a historic trade relationship with

the United Kingdom; and

WHEREAS

the two regions may mutually benefit from trade opportunities;

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

of Assembly to urge government to develop an economic strategy that capitalizes

on trade opportunities between the United Kingdom and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, in the past when I've raised this issue and presented similar

petitions, I focused on some of the history of Brexit and the opportunities it

presents for Newfoundland and Labrador, and why the Department of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation should make a concerted effort to capitalize on

that. Beyond just doing the normal day-to-day activities of the department,

beyond just continuing the trade work in the department that's been going on for

years. There's an incredible opportunity before us because of Brexit. We have a

historic trade relationship with the United Kingdom.

I'd like

to elaborate a little bit on why we should build on that because it's really

about opportunity opportunity to strengthen ties between the UK and

Newfoundland and Labrador; opportunities to increase trade to support the

province's economy; opportunities to create jobs so that hard-working families

in Newfoundland and Labrador have the dignity of work. I believe that our

province must seize that rare opportunity. Never again will the opportunity so

plainly present itself to re-found and improve the trade between the UK and

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Because

a queue has already formed, from Australia to India, from Ghana to New Zealand,

all searching to open the British economy, which is actually the fifth largest

in the world, all seeking to open it to their products and services. We can't

afford to be at the back of that line. Jobs depend on it, and I'm calling on

government to act, as are the petitioners that I'm speaking on behalf of here

today. I think it can be part of a wider plan to diversify the economy.

I know

that folks in the United Kingdom will continue to buy our seafood and our oil

and our iron, but there are other parts of life in Newfoundland and Labrador

that could also be sold back in the UK. Right now, you can buy maple syrup from

Quebec in the UK, but you can't buy Newfoundland and Labrador bakeapple jam.

There are bars in London that sell some liquors that are produced in our Arctic,

but you can't find Iceberg gin, made on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There

are a lot of people from the UK who go to the mainland for vacations, but we

could attract more of them to Newfoundland and Labrador when you consider our

scenery, our culture and the warm welcome that's found here. So there's an

opportunity here; great prosperity can lie ahead if we pursue it, but we need to

make a concerted effort to do so.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker I would call from

the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 65.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill

65,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 65 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 65 has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2, read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Order 4, third reading of Bill 69.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 69,

An Act To

Amend The Health Professions Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 69 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health Professions Act. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 69 has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Health Professions Act, read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Harbour Main, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 66.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 66.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 66,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 3.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 66)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I

have a chance to support this, but I do have a couple of clarification questions

here around multi-year funding and being able to do that.

Can the

minister give some clarification of exactly what the criteria will be for

multi-year funding for a particular organization? What that criteria would be,

how they fit that criteria and are there already ones existing? And, if so,

based on what criteria and how would new ones meet that criteria?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I

said when we introduced Bill 66, this was really about enabling the

Financial Administration Act to

provide a mechanism which currently doesn't exist for our government's plan to

have multi-year grants. The process is continuing to be worked on by officials,

as well as items such as criteria for multi-year funding. So those things are to

come.

What

we're talking about in this particular piece of legislation is it singularly

updates the Financial Administration Act

to allow for multi-year funding. As we've discussed in the House during debate

already, currently there is no provision inside the

Financial Administration Act for monies to go to community

organizations in any way in a multi-year scenario. So part of the process of

implementing a multi-year grants program is to make sure that we have the

legislative ability under the Financial

Administration Act to do that.

So I

appreciate the sincerity of the question from the Member opposite but we're

certainly very early in the process, and I can't provide that information to him

right now.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

appreciate the minister outlining that. She may be at the point right now where

there are still some details haven't been worked out, but around the

accountability issue, we've had those discussions here because while we all

support a bit of longevity with organizations because of the benefits of being

able to plan from staffing and training and leverage other types of money

through partnerships, we do realize it's taxpayers' money and every organization

that we deal with has to be accountable.

Have

there been some discussions around the accountability process? Particularly when

we get into second and third year, because maybe the mode of that organization

or the priorities have changed somewhat, or they've leveraged much more money

than they need from the government purse, for example, to look at maybe we're

already duplicating funding because they've already leveraged from a private

partner or a federal partner or a municipal partner as part of that.

So it's

more about the accountability to ensure as we move I can understand year one

is probably the easiest year after the assessment process is done, but the

accountability for year two and year three to ensure money is not being

duplicated and it's being used for what it was funded for.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, from our perspective, and I'm sure Members opposite would share this,

the accountability for taxpayers' money is something that we take very

seriously. Equally so too, do we take seriously providing consistency in funding

decisions to organizations so that they can make the operational decisions they

need to make, particularly for programs that straddle multiple years.

From an

accountability framework perspective, in the multi-year grants, those types of

tools that will be used and assessments that will be used, will be defined in

the regulations. But I can assure the House, and I think it would be no

surprise, that some fundamental things like financial disclosure, providing

transparency into the organization's financial performance on a regular and

annual basis would provide confidence to government on a regular basis as to the

destination and the expenses of the charity.

While,

as we all know in this House, the majority of the I said charity, I should say

the not-for-profit sector more appropriately, Mr. Chair. We recognize there are

thousands and thousands and thousands of individuals that put a tremendous

amount of due diligence into working in community and are part of volunteer

boards that monitor the operations and the financial capacity and financial

accountability of all of these front-line organizations.

We have

seen, sadly, organizations that have, through sometimes no fault of their own,

and sometimes through purposeful actions by others, that there is a need to

address the accountability and that taxpayers' money hasn't been used for the

purposes of which it was provided, which was to provide the services that the

organization was asked to do.

Certainly, as part of the regulatory framework under multi-year grants, we can

minimally expect to see financial reporting disclosed. And, in all likelihood,

there will be other mechanisms that will be used to ensure that there is an

accountability framework, particularly in the multi-year funding, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Just a

quick question for the minister regarding when the act will come into force; I

think the not-for-profit sector and groups that are depending on funding from

government are quite delighted with this bill we all know that. It has really

given them a sense of hope and a sense of security in that they know that

they're going to be able to do longer term planning because of it.

Because

of that, I'm asking the minister: Is it her intention to have this act come into

force as quickly as possible? Will it be done in conjunction with the budget,

for example? How soon would she hope to have this in? Because I think this is

really important to the community groups to know.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the Member opposite for her question. I would agree with her that I think we

have many, many volunteers and front-line individuals who are working and doing

yeoman's service in community that are looking forward to the consistency that,

potentially, multi-year grants might provide their organizations.

As I

mentioned earlier in the debate, we have a cross-departmental team right now.

That team is made up of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, the Women's Policy Office, Executive Council, the Community Seniors

and Social Development, Finance and the Office of the Comptroller General. We

also are bringing in Education and Early Childhood Development and other

departments on an as-needed basis. That cross-departmental team is continuing to

establish the framework and then, fundamentally, the regulations and policies

that will follow as part of multi-year grants. We have a lot of work to do

there.

I would

not want to lead those hard-working volunteers in the community astray. It's

going to take us a period of time to get that work done. Our hope would be that

we'd be able to make an announcement well in advance of next year's budget and

do training with the organizations so they understand the new mechanism that

they will have to use to apply for multi-year funding, and help them work

through that process so that funding announcements made in next year's budget

would be made under the umbrella of multi-year funding for those groups and

organizations that would be able to receive their money in that way.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the

bill itself, or in discussion in terms of introducing the bill, I think there

was reference made to community-based organizations in regard to many

discussions about those for multi-year funding. In the bill itself, there's no

reference to community-based organizations.

Could

the minister give us some understanding of what the definition of that group

would be?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

definition of community groups includes, for example, cultural groups. I know

there were some questions in the House earlier as to whether or not cultural

groups would be included. As a community organization, they would certainly have

the ability to apply for multi-year funding, and that would be a cultural and

heritage grants.

Also,

economic grants can also be part of multi-year funding and can be included in

the definition. As to exactly which portions of grants if an organization is

receiving operating grants, certainly those were the ones that we're focusing on

for multi-year. Program grants are different, as Members of this House

understand.

So those

organizations that are receiving operating grants, our intention is to follow

the definition that I just referred to in answering the Member's question.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There

are a number of volunteer administrative boards that are set up in the province

to carry out various functions for providing services to the public; r egional

health authorities and entities like that that get large grants at any

particular time in the budget process on an annual basis.

Would

those be groups that would be considered for multi-year funding? I'm just trying

to get an idea of how you differentiate volunteer groups and the role they play

in society in our province and who would be included here and who would not be.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, the Member

opposite certainly raises and interesting point. As I think this House may be

aware, when you look at the Estimates books, there's over $3 billion worth of

funds that go out in the form of grants, as it's listed in the Estimates books.

Certainly monies that go to regional health authorities are considered

technically, by definition of the Estimates books, grants.

That's

not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is monies that are

distributed through various government departments that go directly into

community-based organizations. Those community-based organizations may be

working in the area of social policy, or they may be working in the area of the

economy. They also may be working in the areas, as was said earlier, of culture

and heritage. Certainly, as the work unfolds over the next number of months, we

can provide clarity to those organizations as to which organizations have the

ability to participate in the multi-year funding program.

If the

Members opposite have specific organizations that they would have questions

about, we can certainly take those under advisement as part of the work that

we'll be undertaking over the next number of months.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

When the

minister answered my last question and I thank her for answering the last

question, fairly clearly she did make reference to hoping to have everything

well in place by the next year's budget and I'm wondering if the minister is

talking about 2017-18 budget or 2018-2019 budget?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of

the things that has to happen as part of just one example of what has to

happen in order for government to be able to provide a multi-year grants process

is we have to structurally change the kind of one-window approach. We would like

to make it very simple for organizations to access information into government,

so there's technology work that has to be done. There's administrative work that

has to be done. There is cross-departmental work that has to be done.

I would

expect that our goal is to achieve all of that work and have the process

identified so it's able to be communicated to organizations so that we can

announce in Budget 2018-19 the results of the multi-year funding so that

organizations will have clarity over the course of three years.

I think

it was also, Mr. Chair, important for me to recognize that much like

infrastructure spending, which has the ability to change on an annual basis, our

intention with the community grants is to also provide opportunity on an annual

basis for organizations who maybe weren't prepared in one year but are better

prepared in a second year to apply for the multi-year grant privilege that we

can help make that happen. We recognize that providing clarity in multiple years

and, I guess, dependability on revenue allows organizations to focus on what

they're doing, versus focusing on filling out grant applications.

So our

plan is to hopefully have the organizations well trained and well prepared for

the first wave, which we intend to have ready to execute and implement for next

year's budget so we can make the first series of announcements, but that

shouldn't limit organizations that may need some additional time to prepare for

what has yet to be determined, the rules and regulations. Our objective is to

make this as easy as possible for organizations so that they can keep their

efforts focused on providing the services that are so critical to the people

that they serve.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to

clarify some information the minister gave a little earlier in the questions

with regard to defining community-based organizations. I just wonder, I think

her answer was that in order to qualify you'd be a non-profit group tied

directly to a line department and the money would flow directly to you. So based

on you being an applicant, that would make you eligible. But it wouldn't be a

situation where funds could be allocated to an intervening group that would then

subsequently pass it on to another, as I indicated, with a regional health

authority or something like that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I can't answer that question at this particular point. As the Member opposite

would recognize, and I say this with gentle humour on a Thursday afternoon, the

amount of locations across departments, agencies, boards and commissions that

community grant money goes into our community is extensive. And we want to make

sure that as we bring in a multi-year grants program, that we don't

inadvertently create an unintended consequence that prevents a very critical

organization that is providing front-line services from getting caught in a

policy that hasn't caught up with the multiple places that money is distributed

in the community.

So while

it is our hope that everything would come from core government, the Member

opposite would be aware that certainly regional health authorities do provide

some community grants. For us, we want to make sure that as part of the work the

cross-departmental team is doing, that we would capture those and certainly

identify any and all places where community groups receive money and try to

provide some clarity as to whether that money is going to be available through

the multi-year grants process or if it will be available through a program

grant, which is not the same as multi-year grants.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Will community youth networks

now be able to avail of three-year funding?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, that particular

community organization I believe is in the CSSD the funding comes out of the

CSSD. I don't have the information in front of me as to whether or not those

organizations receive funding through other departments or through regional

health authorities. I don't have that information here today.

It is

our intention that any organization that receives core funding right now will

have the ability to participate in the multi-year grants program. While I can't

speak specifically to that organization, I can provide that context to the

Member opposite.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Will

this bill then apply to sports organizations, the health and wellness grants? I

know you referred to those within health authorities, but those within the

department. We were wondering if you could provide us with a list of which

programs, or give us some specific programs that you're talking about here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, I certainly have,

as I said earlier, a tremendous amount of respect for the Members opposite, as I

do for the Members on this side of the House, who are certainly eager to

understand the substantial change in multi-year funding for community

organizations, and I appreciate Members speaking positively to this.

I do

want to remind Members opposite, and for the relevance of the bill, what we're

talking about here is not the organizations that will apply, that will be

impacted. What we are talking about is an adjustment to the

Financial Administration Act that will

provide the framework in the legislation for us to provide multi-year grants.

Right now as it sits in our province, any government, our government, former

governments, future governments, as the legislation sits right now would be

limited and, quite frankly, would have no ability to provide multi-year grants.

What

we're talking about as part of this particular legislation is to change the

Financial Administration Act to

provide the mechanism to allow that to happen. As I said earlier, I understand

the enthusiasm and the zeal of which the Members opposite would like to get

specifics. I don't have the specifics for them this afternoon, Mr. Chair, but I

certainly hope their representation and their eagerness to represent their

constituents will not result in us not passing this bill because without the

bill we will be unable to provide multi-year funding in any form to any

organization.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Chair, certainly we're

supportive of the bill, but in the spirit of openness and honesty we feel it

would be the right thing to do for government to be straightforward and open

with the people about the programs and services they're going to be covering.

So we're

wondering if the Finance Minister can commit to bringing the draft regulations

forward here to the House of Assembly before they are finalized, again, in the

spirit of openness and honesty for the people of the province.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, the regulations

that will be governing multi-year grants will, first and foremost, be

communicated as part of our consultation work with community and getting their

feedback on the work we're doing. The cross-departmental team that's in place

now will be the ones that will be creating the rules around the multi-year

grants that will apply strictly to operating grants.

I know

Members in this House sometimes have difficulty understanding the difference

between program money and core operating funding. Certainly, that's what our

focus is, is on core operating money. We will provide full transparency to the

people of the province on the process.

Mr.

Chair, I would remind Members of this House that providing this type of

transparency and also providing the ability for organizations to avail of

multi-year funding is considerably more than the former administration did when

my understanding is that ministers actually had the ability to determine who

got community grants, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Today we're talking primarily

about community organizations, but what's going to prevent Cabinet from changing

the regulations in a year or two? Could Cabinet change the regulations to

include business grants and tourism grants, and grants to health authorities?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would

remind the Member opposite that in an earlier question related to the definition

of grants I provided that community-based grants can be defined as cultural

organizations. They can also be defined as economic. They can also be defined as

a community based. I think for the Member opposite, that answer should provide

her some clarity. If we have organizations that are receiving core funding that

may be cultural, for example, or heritage driven, we want to be able to provide

that certainty in a multi-year situation.

I think

for the Member opposite to get some sense of comfort, having a very transparent

process that community is very aware of, I'm very confident the general public,

as they always do, will hold not only government, but Members of this House of

Assembly accountable for the processes and systems that government puts in

place.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

So to get some further

clarity now for the organizations that are out there receiving funding on an

annual basis, if a particular group gets rejection for funding in one year, does

that mean that they will then not be able to receive funding for the three

following years, or will there be a block of funding set aside for applications

each and every year?

So my

question, to be clear, is: Will funding be awarded each year, or will all the

funding be awarded for three years at a time?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Chair, I thank the Member

opposite for her question. I think I referred earlier to the rolling

infrastructure process. Those Members on this side of the House who participate

in Treasury Board, and I would suggest Members on that side who may have had the

opportunity and privilege to do so, may also understand that Treasury Board

process allows for a rolling budget.

It is

our intent, obviously, to make sure that community organizations who may want to

avail of multi-year funding grant applications but, for some reason, are

unsuccessful, that they are still eligible for applying for the core funding

that they may have achieved. There may be a reason why an organization doesn't

meet the criteria for multi-year funding.

If you

have an organization that has, as I'm sure, sadly, Members in this House would

have some appreciation for, when you have an organization which, for example,

has questionable financial performance, has serious concerns about the

organization delivering the services that it must provide, then in those

situations it would be irresponsible of any government to provide funding in a

multi-year environment.

But

those organizations that, for whatever reason, may not meet the criteria in one

year certainly will have the opportunity to reply in subsequent years. And we

see this as a rolling discussion, rolling process, on an annual basis for those

community organizations.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't

have many comments to make on this legislation, but I did want to have an

opportunity in Committee to raise a couple of concerns. I'm, once again, asking

for the minister's consideration as it relates to grants to youth organizations.

The concept of multi-year funding is a really good one. So I applaud government

for taking that step.

The

challenge I have, however, is with cuts that have happened over the past year to

grants to youth organizations. Now, several ministers and the Premier himself

have stood and said well, those grants, it's not core funding. That's simply not

accurate. The challenge we have is that for youth organizations that were

getting funding year after year after year from the provincial government, to

have that cut halfway through the fiscal year without warning has had a

detrimental impact on some youth programs in our province.

So I've

asked lots of questions and made lots of noise about that in the past; I won't

prolong that point today, but I do want to highlight the impact it's had in real

terms on some of those organizations in terms of dollars. What I'm asking for is

simply government's consideration of including these organizations that have

been impacted as it takes a different approach to multi-year funding. So if

these organizations can benefit from the changes that are being made here, which

will allow government to do multi-year funding, then I think the concerns can be

addressed.

We may

still argue about the funding amounts; we may still argue that organization X

has been treated unfairly and isn't receiving enough funding or whatever the

case may be, but it would give these organizations some ability to plan and to

budget if they had some sense of what their funding is going to look like for

multiple years.

organization like Allied Youth has been funded for decades by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador; in fact, at one point the office may still be

their office was even in a government building with a government phone number.

It was an organization that was very heavily supported by the provincial

government.

Their

funding for 2015-2016 and recent years prior to that was $35,000. Not a lot of

money. But in 2016-2017 it's only $23,000. When that's a significant chunk of

your provincial operating budget that you depend on year over year over year,

then it's effectively core funding and to have that cut partway through fiscal

year has a detrimental impact. Boys and Girls Clubs across the province were

cut. The Botwood Boys and Girls Club were cut from $10,000, which it had been

receiving for years and years, down to $6500.

So we're

not talking about a lot of money. So we're actually talking about a problem that

is easily solved. The Boys and Girls Club received a provincial grant of over 50

grand and they've received it for years and years and years, and it's been cut

in more than half. It's down to $24,500 this year. The Boys and Girls Club of

St. John's has for years and years and years received about $72,000. It was cut

down to $34,000 this year; so cut by more than half.

That's

resulted in programs being cancelled. That's resulted in reduced staffing at the

St. John's Boys and Girls Club. The Boys and Girls Club of Wabana on Bell Island

has had a similar experience; I don't know if I have the figure immediately

available. They were receiving $36,000 a year and it's been cut to $17,000 a

year.

I won't

list them all St. Anthony and area, it was cut from $10,000 annually down to

$4,500. So Boys and Girls Clubs across the board were impacted, which is very

unfortunate, and it happened part way through a fiscal year so there was no

ability to plan. They'd love to have the assurance that, in future, it's going

to be set for multiple years, whether it's three years or whatever the case may

be at a time, that would allow them to plan. So if their funding is going to be

cut and you know it's going to be cut, at least you can plan or if you know it's

going to be stable for three years, you can plan accordingly.

I want

to emphasize that these cuts did have real impact on these organizations. It's

not simply a matter of my colleague for Conception Bay East Bell Island and

others and myself making noise about it for the sake of doing so. We've worked

directly with many of these organizations and we know how far these dollars get

stretched and what impact they have on young people who need services and need

support.

Easter

Seals was cut. There was a youth centre and an organization in Englee that was

cut completely. The Girl Guides were cut. In addition to that, funding for

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Parliament was reduced; funding for their Radhoc

Youth Leadership organization was reduced.

Our

cadet programs in the province the Navy League of Canada for instance, which

is not heavily federally funded in fact, I don't think they received any

funding at all from the Department of National Defence. Air cadets, army cadets,

sea cadets, they do receive some support, although they still rely on the

province for some funding as well.

In the

case of the Navy League, they receive virtually no federal support. A modest

grant of $5,000 a year for the provincial division of the Navy League of Canada

went a long, long way to supporting their work, which is driven 100 per cent by

volunteers. That grant to the Navy League of Canada, the Newfoundland and

Labrador division, which they've received for years, was reduced to zero. Not

just cut by 50 per cent like many others, or more than 50 per cent, it was

reduced to zero.

Some

people will say well, five grand, that's not a lot of money. No, it isn't, but

when it's the bulk of your operating budget that you depend on year over year,

it's a hell of a lot of money. So that's why it's necessary for us to make this

point once again today.

The Duke

of Edinburgh's Award program, which has been heavily funded by the province for

a long, long time, they've received an annual grant for quite some time of

$60,000 a year. Part way through the fiscal year, they find out their grant is

cut to $30,500.

So there

are lots of project grants that also get funded that are one time. Some of them

may apply again and receive a grant for multiple years but it's not consistent.

All of the ones I've listed, for years, in some cases for decades, have received

a similar amount of money from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I'm

hoping in this budget that we now know will come on April 6, I'm hoping some

consideration will be given to fixing that. Given the minor amount of money that

I just outlined for those organizations that were receiving the grant year over

year over year over year for the same amount, then that's core funding they

depend on. So, treat it as such. Even if you can't restore all of it, restore

some of it.

relation specifically to the bill we're debating here today, enter into an

agreement with them that says, okay, this is the new amount hopefully larger

than the reduced amount, but at the very least, here's what your funding is

going to be for the next three years. That's as a result of this legislation

we're debating here, easily done, and that's what should be done.

We're

talking about an impact of not a lot of money, but an impact on thousands of

young people. In some communities, particularly in the rural communities, the

children and youth accessing the services of these organizations, it's the only

game in town so to speak.

When you

talk about cutting funding for a Boys and Girls Club in a rural community, it's

a focal point for community activity for young people. It's a place where they

regularly go after school and go in the evenings to participate in safe, fun

activities that contributes to their development. It's a place where they get

mentoring. It's a place where they get help with homework. It's a place where

they participate in recreation programs that in many cases they might not

otherwise be able to afford. So that's why it's important to make this point

today.

I'm

respectfully asking the minister to consider these organizations in making

budget decisions this year. Look at restoring some of the funding that did get

cut. The project grants are important, but I'm not as concerned about those. I'm

concerned about the organizations that were receiving the same amount of money

year over year over year over year, and in some cases, Mr. Chair, that was for

decades.

Now,

please, based on this legislation that we're bringing in here, which we will

support, let's make it possible for these organizations to have some assurance

of what their funding is going to look like for the short term, for the next few

years. It's a reasonable approach. I'm glad government is taking that approach,

but let's address the issue that's affected dozens of youth organizations in

this province.

This is

an opportunity to easily make it right, and we will be the first to stand and

support government if it chooses to take that step. So I think I've sufficiently

made the point, Mr. Chair, I'll conclude my comments there.

Thank

you for the opportunity.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

No, I can sit and let the

minister respond.

MS. C. BENNETT:

(Inaudible) go ahead.

MR. BRAZIL:

Fair enough.

Okay, I

have a question around our conversation back and forth, and I was glad to see

there will be criteria developed around the onus on accountability but also on

the criteria of who meets that.

Can I

suggest and I go back just because of my 30 years as a civil servant and a lot

of it around working with not for profits and youth organizations of engaging

them. I know civil servants do a wonderful job in our province of addressing the

needs and that, but it would make their job a little bit easier. It would be

very relevant particularly if you're going to do multi-year funding, you want

to ensure the criteria meet the needs of those organizations and from our

financial investments.

Could I

suggest, and would the minister give any thought to this, of trying to engage

parts of the sector. It doesn't have to be a big encompassing, costly exercise.

It could be either through an online petition or an outline for people to

propose what they feel. The organizations that are going to benefit from this,

what the criteria should be because in some cases some of these organizations

can do some self-policing to ensure the money is being spent properly and that

it's better invested to ensure the programs that are the priorities are the ones

we invest in.

So I'm

throwing it out to the minister. Would she consider engaging her staff or staff

from another department to see if there's a mechanism to ensure the sector out

there, that you're going to be funding and who would no doubt be very

appreciative of multi-year funding, could have input to design the criteria.

For two

reasons; one, in my former life it shows when there's more engagement there,

then there's less push back and less confusion by the entities that we're trying

to support. The second would be, it would streamline exactly what we're going to

put out as our policy from a government point of view when it comes to

multi-year funding.

So I

want to throw that out to see if the minister would be interested in engaging

that and having some staff address that in some way, shape or form.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll

take the opportunity to answer a couple of questions that two Members opposite

asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I ask

all hon. Members if they could bring the volume of the conversation down,

please.

Thank

you.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Two

questions at least that I want to address as part of this Committee debate. One

was from the Member opposite who asked about whether there is an opportunity or

a plan to engage community as part of the process of establishing what the

criteria might be.

We have

multiple departments that are participating in this activity. I would certainly

expect, as the lead minister on this particular project, that those departments

would reach out to their stakeholder groups and ask for feedback and suggestions

as part of the process we're undergoing. I think that certainly provides an

opportunity for a community to be engaged in the discussion, and I would see

that to be a normal practice to do.

With

regard to the comments from the other Member opposite, with regard to the list

of organizations, I too would recognize that every one of those organizations

provides an opportunity for youth in our province to participate in things they

may not have the opportunity to participate.

Mr.

Chair, one of the things that was certainly evident to me as we went through

this process with officials, it was clear that the former administration

definitely was having internal angst over what was core funding and what was

project funding. Certainly, they brought that discussion here to the House. They

represented that as part of this debate, and I certainly appreciate that.

There

are organizations, and the Member opposite indicated there were a number of

organizations that received project funding regularly, unchecked. Those

decisions I would have to defer to the people who were in the decision-making

chairs at the time as to why those were made.

In our

situation, what we're trying to do is to provide a more open and transparent

process for community organizations so they can understand how the process will

be made. That they will have certainty in multi-year funding for core funding,

and obviously project and program funding is different from core funding and

will continue to be so.

Mr.

Chair, I would suggest to the Member opposite, any organization who will be

provided an opportunity to participate in the multi-year grant application

process could certainly do that, and we'll be sure to make sure that we do

communicate through organizations like the Community Sector Council on the

regulations and the tools that are available for those organizations to

participate should they choose to.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was

prepared to leave my comments where they were. On a positive note, to start

with, I'm happy to hear the minister say that any organizations can have a

conversation with government and take advantage of this new approach to

multi-year funding. So that in itself is good news for the organizations we're

talking about, but to suggest somehow that this is project funding is

ridiculous. It's not true. It's an absolute statement that it's absolutely

false.

We're

talking about organizations that have depended on this funding year over year

over year. So if you fill out a form manually, yes, that's fine; that's part of

government process and that's existed for decades and decades. Liberal

governments, PC governments, that's the way it has been. The fact that we're

moving to a model where you won't have to jump through that hoop of filling out

the same form every year when you know well, you used to know you'd get the

same amount of money every year. Cleaning that up and entering into multi-year

funding agreements makes good sense.

What

doesn't make sense, though, is misleading the people of the province by

suggesting that these organizations are somehow receiving project funding and

not annual funding that's core to their operation. It's not fair, it's

disingenuous and I'm going to call it out. It's not fair to those organizations.

We've heard from them. They feel that they've been treated unfairly by this

government. In some cases, they feel they've been bullied, which I would hope

the minister would take seriously.

So to

stand in this House and to suggest that this isn't core funding we've had this

debate in Question Period; we had it in Estimates. All I'm looking for is

acknowledgement that these organizations will be treated fairly through this

year's budget process, that they can avail of multi-year funding and that some

of the funding that was cut halfway through a fiscal year maybe for political

reasons, I don't know this funding was cut, it makes sense for this funding to

be restored.

I can

list the project funding. If the minister would like me to give the list of all

the project funding, that's fine. You have groups that received one-time grants

or might have received it for a couple of years or applied for funding for a

particular reason; that's fine. But then you had other organizations, like the

ones I listed, who received the same amount of money year over year over year

and filled out the same application form.

I worked

for a couple of charities professionally, years ago, and I filled out the form

year after year after year. I knew, based on conversations with the staff in the

youth services division, which has changed names multiple times, but based on

the conversation with those officials, I knew that I could count on getting the

same amount of money every year.

Now, it

may have changed slightly some years because governments may have decided to

increase funding or decrease funding slightly, but we've never seen a situation

like this where an organization that's been receiving the same amount of money

for, in some cases, decades, all of a sudden, after spending that money that

they were counting on for six months, find out that their grant has been cut in

half for that current year. By any standard, that's outrageous.

So I

can't sit quietly and have a game being played and be told that oh no, this is

project funding and somehow it was about how the previous administration managed

it. Mr. Chair, funding for these organizations was stable during the previous

administration. I recognize, like many of these organizations, that tough

decisions have to be made. I think most of these organizations, given the

provinces fiscal circumstances, would have been quite prepared to live with

government saying at the beginning of the fiscal year you know what, we're going

to have to reduce funding this year. So you can anticipate a 10 per cent

reduction in your grant.

If you

know that, if you have a little bit of notice, then you can plan for that and

that, hopefully, with good planning, may not result in people losing their jobs

or after-school programs being cancelled. But as a result of the attitude of

this administration, that doesn't seem to matter. That doesn't seem to matter.

To say oh well, it wasn't core funding; it's nonsense Mr. Chair. It's absolute

nonsense. I can't sit quietly and accept those statements being made repeatedly

in this Legislature.

Organizations like the Army League of Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador, which

had received several thousand dollars a year every year was reduced to zero.

Allied Youth which has received $35,000 for years again, used to have a

government phone number, had a government office, has been funded by the

province since, I don't know, the 50s or 60s, they go back at least that far

was cut this year to $23,000. Boys and Girls Clubs had their funding in many

cases cut in half. I mentioned some of them already; being cut by over 50 per

cent mid-year is problematic.

The

Church Lads' Brigade has received funding for years, and had their grant reduced

as well. I previously mentioned Easter Seals; the Gander Boys and Girls Club

previously received $15,500 a year it was cut this year to $8,000. The Girl

Guides of Canada was cut from $37,000 to $25,000. The James Hornell Boys and

Girls Club which was quick to defend government during the budget process a

staff member for the club, who probably regrets it now, was quick to come out in

defence because he had been assured by his MHA that funding would not be cut and

then finds out halfway through the fiscal year that the grant was cut from

$37,500 to $25, 500.

This is

real, Mr. Chair. And the reason some of these groups are so upset is that they

depend on the funding year over year over year. So we can talk about the

semantics of application forms and internal government terminology; that's fine.

But that's not the issue that I'm trying to solve. The issue that I'm trying to

solve is about predictable, sustainable funding for non-profit organizations.

actually believe that, through this legislation, that is the problem government

is trying to solve. That is the issue that government is trying to address, and

I applaud them for doing so. All I'm saying is that for a very small amount of

money, for these organizations that have been missed, for these organizations

that have been treated differently because of some arbitrary definition that's

not even logical, let's just make it right for them. Let's give them a chance to

avail of multi-year funding. The minister says that will happen, so that's good

news and I'm glad to see that happen.

But

let's acknowledge the fact that these organizations have received the same

amount of money from government. They fill out the same form every year and

receive the same amount of money every year, and that's gone on for multiple

years and, in some cases, for decades. I call that core funding. It's not used

for a particular project. If you read their applications, it's not

project-based; it's about sustaining their overall programs and services and

it's been treated by these organizations and by government as being annual

operating funding. I don't know how you can call that anything other than core

funding.

anyway, we've exhausted that debate. It's been going on since last April. But

the problem still exists for these organizations who've reduced after-school

programs and reduced staffing, in some cases.

A grant

to Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Parliament being reduced from $3,000 to

$2,000, while it's a significant percentage, maybe that won't have major

operational impact. But when you cut half of the funding for the St. John's Boys

and Girls Club, that has operational impact. That has real operational impact.

It's not just the St. John's Boys and Girls Club, it's the Wabana Boys and Girls

Club, it's the Gander Boys and Girls Club, it's the James Hornell Boys and Girls

Club, it's the St. Anthony Boys and Girls Club, not to mention the YMCAs.

The YMCA

of Exploit's Valley was cut from $9,000 annually to $4,000 this year. The YMCA

of Western Newfoundland and Labrador was cut from $13,500 to $6,500. So this has

real impact. I understand government has to make difficult choices but this is

one that I think is easily fixed. This legislation makes it easier to fix by

providing predictable, sustainable, multi-year funding to these organizations

that were negatively impacted through

Budget 2016.

If you

get the grant every year and you fill out the same form every year and you get

the same amount of money every year and it sustains your operation, then I call

that core funding, even if the minister doesn't want to admit it.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, I stand on a point of

order, Mr. Chair, under

section 49.

I didn't

interrupt the Member opposite while he spoke but he did use the term during the

debate, he said that the Member on this side was misleading the people of the

province and misleading the public. That is clearly unparliamentary, and I would

ask that he simply stand up, withdraw the comment and we'll continue on with the

debate.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking

to the point of order; at numerous times in the last couple of weeks similar

language has been used. I did not accuse a particular Member of misleading the

House. That would indeed be unparliamentary, but the use of the term misleading,

it's really about context and how it was used. I didn't use it in a way that

hasn't been used regularly in this House in the last number of weeks. So, Mr.

Chair, I can't withdraw that remark.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, we gave the Member opposite an opportunity to do so. Again, he can't

use previous times that were not referenced. If the Member opposite took umbrage

or issue with the use of a word at any point he has had every opportunity to

stand in this House and point that out and have it put on the record, but he,

nor any Member of his caucus, had taken the time to do so. So, clearly, they did

not have an issue.

I'm

pointing out right now, as we clearly know through O'Brien and Bosc, saying that

a Member is misleading the House is unparliamentary. I would stand and ask the

Member to stand and withdraw the comment.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair of the Committee

will take it under advisement and report back to the Committee.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

interesting to sit here and listen to this debate, especially as it comes from

the Member for Mount Pearl North because he very well knows the distinction

between core funding for community organizations and project funding. He's well

aware of that.

It's

sort of rich to hear him talk about funding being provided for political reasons

when we know, and certainly be able to table information here in the House of

Assembly to that effect, that when the Member for Mount Pearl North was deputy

premier and had an opportunity to politically interfere in decisions around

where monies for community-based organizations went, he did that very thing

himself.

So it's

really a case of the pot calling the kettle black because that's what he did.

When he was in there he did two things that I we can provide lots of

information, factually-based information to this effect, that the one thing the

Member for Mount Pearl North did when he was deputy premier is he steered

funding to community-based organizations in his own district over

community-based organizations in other districts. We know he did that. If you

look at the numbers for organizations in his own district that other

organizations in other districts across Newfoundland and Labrador did not get

funding because they were fattening up the purse so that he could give it to

organizations in his own district.

On top

of that, we also know that when the Member for Mount Pearl North was deputy

premier he steered money towards pet organizations that he had involvement in

previously before he was involved in politics. One of them involves a uniform. I

don't think I have to name what uniform it is, but I know my son's in Beavers,

Mr. Chair.

We know

the Member basically bulked up funding for pet organizations that he favoured

over others and that he bulked up funding and fattened up funding for

organizations in his own district. So for him to stand here today on the floor

of the House of Assembly and suggest the hon. Minister of Finance is somehow

politically interfering or somebody else is politically interfering, he must be

basing that on his own experience doing that very thing, because that's what he

did.

There is

a comprehensive list, if anybody wants to know. If the Memb