PDF Version

June 18, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 6

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

welcome the Members back to this House of Assembly.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we'll hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South; St.

George's - Humber; Mount Scio; Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans, and Stephenville -

Port au Port.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 30, I had the opportunity to attend and present Duke of

Edinburgh Bronze Awards to 12 deserving young students at Frank Roberts Junior

High in Foxtrap.

qualify, participants must undertake a balanced program of leisure-time

activities such as community service, areas of self-development, adventurous

journeys, physical fitness and skill development.

This

group has been involved in many challenging and worthwhile activities under the

direction of committed volunteer leaders. In speaking with participants

individually, they tell stories of personal growth and commitment as they

embarked on the various challenges and opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate: Mac Butters, Jimmy Cluney, Emma

Dalton, Katherine Eason, Isabella Greeley, Matthew Hillier, Brady Lawrence,

Rasami Newman, Ella D. Smith, Grace Sparkes, Nora Taylor and Bree-Ann Warren.

This is

quite an accomplishment and I with them all well in their future endeavours.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to make Members and, indeed, all listeners aware of one of the largest

cultural events taking place in this province over the summer. The Bay St.

George Powwow which will be held in Flat Bay on July 12, 13 and 14.

A Powwow

is a unique event signified by social exchange, cultural sharing and ceremonial

rituals. Indeed, the Powwow is a time of teaching, learning, singing, dancing,

feasting, sharing and healing. Powwows are an expression of culture, pride and

identity. It is a unifying ritual for the young and the old, a recollection of

the past and a celebration of the future.

The Bay

St. George Powwow is a showpiece of the cultural revival which is happening

amongst the Mi'kmaq people in this province. It is a wonderful event for

everyone who wants to fully understand the multicultural nature of this

province.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage all Members of the House and the general public to attend

the Bay St. George Powwow in Flat Bay on July 12, 13 and 14 of this year.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Mount Scio.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to take this opportunity to highlight one of the many excellent schools in

my District of Mount Scio.

In May

of this year, students at Leary's Brook Junior High practised their coding

skills, creating games using the programming language Scratch. In a Brilliant

Labs Scratch Competition, grades four to six students at Leary's Brook Junior

High won three provincial awards for the games they created.

The Best

Artistic Design winner was awarded to the game The Cookie Mystery by student

coders Salina and Madison, under the leadership of teacher Stacey Hopkins; the

Best Artistic Design runner-up was awarded to the Cool Cupcakery game by student

coders Jane and Brooklyn, under the leadership of Mme. Carey; and the Best

Technical runner-up was awarded to the game Star Swarm by Jadon, under the

leadership of teacher Stacey Hopkins.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Leary's Brook Junior High students

Salina, Madison, Jane, Brooklyn and Jadon on their impressive achievement, and

for their parents and teachers for supporting their technical and creative

coding skills.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this House today to commemorate the accomplishments of Captain Adrian

Whiffen.

Captain

Whiffen has been in the Cadet Instructors Cadre for 34 years. He joined 67

Windsor RCSCC as a young man, until he aged out. He enrolled as an officer in

the fall of 1985, and has been in the active movement ever since. He completed

his training courses and reached the rank of lieutenant.

In his

time with 67 Windsor, he held the post of commanding officer twice and had been

involved in marksmanship, band, training, or whatever the corps needed. He spent

many summers working at HMCS Acadia, sharing his knowledge with cadets from all

over the region.

In 2009,

after 24 years of working with the sea cadets, Lt. Whiffen transferred to 1916

where he became Captain Whiffen. Now, he has amassed 34 years of service with

the Canadian cadet movement and is retiring.

Aside

from his service to the cadet movement, Captain Whiffen is a small business

owner in Grand Falls-Windsor. Through his business, Lefty's Pizza, he has

sponsored many organizations throughout the community. Today, we recognize

Captain Adrian Whiffen and all he has done to mould the young cadets that have

passed through the program which have lead them to great success.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Harrison Porter, a student of Stephenville High School.

Harrison

will graduate high school this year. Harrison has been a member of 2904 Royal

Canadian Army Cadet Corps, Stephenville, for six years. During his time in

cadets, Harrison has had the opportunity to participate in many activities.

His more

memorable experiences with the cadet movement have included, travelling across

PEI as a participant in The Canada 150 Confederation Race. He's taken

part in a

six-week cultural and training exchange to the United Kingdom as a cadet

representing Canada who visited Scotland, Wales, England, Belgium and France. As

well, he attended an expedition to the Columbia Ice Fields in Alberta.

In 2019,

he was selected and attended a two-week international expedition and hiked and

kayaked through the mountains of Chile. In June, he will travel to Washington,

DC as one of two Army cadets from Canada to attend a one-week Junior Leadership

& Academic Bowl.

Harrison

was offered early acceptance to The Royal Military College of Canada and

accepted with the intentions of studying Chemical Engineering. He was also

offered a career as an Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Officer upon

completion of his studies.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in wishing Harrison well as he begins his career

pursuits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize June as Recreation Month. This year's theme – Recreation Can –

highlights the many ways being active and involved in recreational activities

can enrich the lives of individuals, families and communities.

Recreation creates social connections, provides opportunities for personal

growth, encourages the development of leadership skills, promotes regular

physical activity and improves physical and mental health. At the community

level, recreation brings people of all ages together to participate in

activities that enrich quality of life and support social and economic

development.

As a

government, we recognize the vital role recreation plays in helping us lead

healthy, active and balanced lives. We remain committed to increasing awareness

and engaging individuals and communities to take action to promote healthy

active living.

Through

our Community Healthy Living Fund, we provide funding for such initiatives as

the trail development, recreation facility upgrades, playgrounds, community

gardens, 50+ exercise and activity programs, youth recreation activities and

healthy eating programs in communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also

provide funding to Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador to offer leadership and

training for recreation professionals and volunteers, advance and support

recreation and sport opportunities for persons with disabilities, and promote

and support people to pursue recreation activities during their leisure time.

I would

like to thank Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador and the many community

recreation partners and volunteers throughout the province for their ongoing

efforts to provide recreation opportunities to residents.

encourage all hon. Members and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to celebrate

Recreation Month by sharing their love for recreation with others to encourage

their participation. I invite everyone to explore the many ways recreation can

benefit them, their families and their communities through improved physical,

mental and social well-being.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of her statement. Mr.

Speaker, all of us on this side of the House do join the minister in recognizing

June as Recreation Month. As the minister noted, recreation provides a vital

opportunity for individuals to get out in their communities, leading active and

balanced lives.

Mr.

Speaker, through partners like Recreation NL and many local community

organizations and service groups who avail of the Community Living Fund,

residents can enjoy many opportunities; however, it was disappointing to learn

in Estimates that the minister has slashed funding the very groups and

organizations who are trying to help us overcome the chronic issues among our

population of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Clearly, we should be

investing more in these areas to break the cycle in our society and improve

health outcomes.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I would like to commend the

Recreation NL for their hard work training professionals and volunteers and

expending opportunities for recreation and sports in our communities.

Definitely our population needs to be more active and changing attitudes to

embrace a healthier way of life takes leadership. I challenge my hon. colleagues

to show leadership by organizing community recreation events to get more people

more active.

I also

urge the government to ensure they consult with communities and make sure they

have resources they need to provide recreation opportunities. This is a prime

example of where a small investment has enormous payoff for our health system

and for the health of our province down the road.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this

hon. House today to congratulate Shiloh Burton of Springdale and Kendra Burden

of Port Hope Simpson, who have been named two of 50 Schulich Leaders across

Canada.

Awarded annually,

this scholarship recognizes entrepreneurial-minded high school graduates

enrolling in a Science, Technology, Engineering or Math program at one of 20

partner universities across Canada.

Shiloh Burton of

Indian River High School has been selected to receive a $100,000 scholarship to

pursue his Engineering Program at Memorial University. Kendra Burden of Bayside

Academy has been selected to receive an $80,000 scholarship to pursue her

Bachelor of Science Degree at Memorial University.

Shiloh and Kendra

were selected based on their outstanding academic achievement and

community-minded spirit. They represent the best and brightest Newfoundland and

Labrador has to offer.

Being from

Springdale as well, Mr. Speaker, I know Shiloh and his family, and I can tell

you, they and his high school family at Indian River High are very pleased of

his achievement.

I congratulate

Shiloh and Kendra and hope their time at Memorial University enriches their

lives, opens doors to new and exciting opportunities and fulfills their

long-term goals.

Mr. Speaker, I

ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Shiloh and Kendra and to wish

them every success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank

you.

The hon. the

Member for the District of Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Mr. Speaker,

allow me to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement as well. On

behalf of the Official Opposition, I join the minister in congratulating Shiloh

Burton and Kendra Burden on this tremendous success.

Being named as

two of the 50 Schulich Leaders across the Canada is a remarkable achievement,

which should be celebrated, especially when we consider that there were over

1,500 nominees. The Schulich Leader scholarships are among the most prestigious

awards in the Canadian education system and are perhaps the highest achievement

for students studying science, engineering, technology and math. These

scholarships will allow Shiloh and Kendra to focus on their studies for the next

number of years without having to worry about the financial stress of tuition or

living expenses.

Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate Shiloh Burton and Kendra Burden on this accomplishment

and I wish them every success as they pursue their post-secondary degrees here

at Memorial University.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join the minister in

congratulating both Shiloh Burton and Kendra Burden on the honour of being named

two of Canada's 50 Schulich Leaders for 2019. Achieving this honour is indeed a

tremendous accomplishment, and I'm delighted that both Shiloh and Kendra have

chosen to continue their studies at Memorial University.

It is

encouraging to see some of our province's best and brightest students choose to

stay here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish them both continued success in

their studies and, once again, congratulate them on this extraordinary

achievement.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when is the date of the next offshore land sale, and in the face of oil

industry fears, is the Minister of Natural Resources concerned that Trudeau Bill

C-69 will drive investment jobs and prosperity away from Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next

offshore sale will be in November of 2019, as per normal in our rotational

basis: November 2019. But allow me to say to the Member opposite, fear mongering

is not helpful at this point in time. We have CEAA 2012, which did not offer

many incentives or inducements for development of our offshore oil and gas

industry.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, for a 30- to 60-day exploration of wells, it can take up to three

years under the 2012 legislation. We're looking and working – this government

and CAPP and Noia and others are working to ensure that we can streamline the

process so that we can continue development offshore. I will remind the Member

that we've had eight new entrants in our offshore in the last number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, both the Premier

and his Minister of Natural Resources have a fondness for referring to the

Harper government environmental legislation, known as CEAA, when asked about

conflict between Trudeau Bill C-69 and the Atlantic Accord.

Is the

Premier aware that the Harper government was proceeding with legislation to make

C-NLOPB the sole regulator when the 2015 federal election was called and that it

was the Trudeau Liberal government that decided against making C-NLOPB the sole

regulator?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me

to remind the Member opposite who likes to speak in hyperbole and references to

all kinds of things that happened in the past as if they did not happen. Allow

me to say to the Member opposite, between 2010 and 2012, CEAA, the Canadian

Environmental Assessment act processes, the bill itself, was winding its way

through, I didn't hear much in the community, Mr. Speaker, from either the PC

government in Newfoundland and Labrador or the federal Harper government on this

very important issue and the erosion of the joint management functions under the

Atlantic Accord.

I will

say to the Member opposite that, yes, there was some discussion around they were

going to set a responsible authority for C-NLOPB; but, indeed, Mr. Speaker, in

the three years, it did not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

I do

remind all Members, I will not tolerate any interruptions, chirping or heckling

or anything else.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition, please.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'll take that as a kind of a

yes.

Yesterday, the Premier told the House that if Bill C-69 violates the Atlantic

Accord legislation we could use the recently negotiated arbitration clause.

Is he

referring to the clause in the Hibernia Dividend Backed Annuity Agreement dated

April 1, 2019? Can he explain how a clause for resolution of disputes under that

agreement could be used to resolve conflicts between Bill C-69 and the Atlantic

Accord legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

the Member opposite does not like to talk about the successes of this

government, but I can say this government has been very successful in dealing

with the Atlantic Accord and really did negotiate with the federal government to

take all the monies that were accruing to the federal government from Hibernia

Management and bring them to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

first time in history that was ever done, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you that, yes, in those discussions there was an agreement made that there

will be an arbitration clause, and should we need to exercise that arbitration

clause, Mr. Speaker, this province certainly will do so. We'll exercise any

remedies that we have to ensure the Atlantic Accord is respected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, that's a great answer for blowing smoke over the fact that the

Premier's reference to an arbitration clause as a solution here is nonsensical.

Has the

Premier lobbied Ottawa to make the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore exempt

from Trudeau's Bill C-69 and to make C-NLOPB the sole regulator, including

environmental regulator?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say,

I don't blow smoke. I will say that quite strongly to this House. I answered his

question quite thoroughly and quite well, I will say.

It might

be his

interpretation that that was smoke, but I can tell you from my

interpretation it was facts. Allow me to give one more fact to the Member

opposite, Mr. Speaker. We have a system called joint management that was well

thought and well argued back in the 1980s, and we are going to make sure that

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador upholds its joint management as well

in this regard.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a joint partner with the Canada-Newfoundland and

Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. We believe the Canada-Newfoundland and

Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is the best vehicle in order to have

environmental assessment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not hearing

an answer to the question, which was pretty straightforward.

Have

they lobbied for that exemption? Furthermore, has the government requested the

federal government to remove offshore exploratory wells from the designated

project list, and would this removal be a full cure to the problem of conflict

with the Atlantic Accords?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I will remind

this House, that this has been a top priority for me and this government since

Multiple

documents, multiple meetings, trips to Ottawa, discussions with ministers,

discussions with senators, briefings to Members of Parliament have occurred over

the last three years. And yes, Mr. Speaker, we have worked very, very hard to

ensure that exploration was removed from the project list. That's the first

thing, and we are now underway with a regional environmental assessment that

will allow that to occur.

Let me

ask the Member opposite a very serious question: What has he done on this very

important and serious issue over the last year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After

months of asking for support and a renewed collaborative arrangement, the Autism

Society has issued eight layoffs while reducing other positions to part-time.

Will the

minister confirm these cuts across the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Our

Autism Action Plan is an inherent and integral part of

Budget 2019 . The Autism Society receives core funding from two

departments in government, one being CSSD and one being Health. That funding has

not changed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Autism Action Plan was announced just before the election on April 17. Launched

with much fanfare, the plan was billed as the way forward on autism.

Unfortunately, the immediate impact on autism clients has been less programs and

services with fewer supports. Clients and parents feel betrayed.

How can

the minister continue to support this plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The plan

is baked into the budget. The Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador are in

complete support of this. I heard very clearly on the doors, bring this plan on.

We are

debating the budget as we speak. As soon as the Members opposite pass it, the

sooner we can get on with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's

no doubt that the Autism Society approved and supported a plan. The difference

is being able to implement it with lack of funding. Therein becomes the problem,

and it has nothing to do with the budget line there. It has to do with what the

line items are going to be down the road.

Mr.

Speaker, our office has received calls and emails from clients and parents

concerned over these massive cuts to the Autism Society. One-on-one programming

has been cancelled, inclusive activities have been curtailed and community

outreach has been stopped.

Why does

the minister support the gutting of the Autism Society?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much for the question.

The

Member opposite is referring to the activities of the Autism Society. No funding

changes have been made to the Autism Society. We cannot implement our Autism

Action Plan until we have the resources to add the resources necessary to bring

that in. That is part of the budget. That is what we're debating. That is what

the hold up is. That is what we went and got our mandate from the people of this

province on. The plan is in the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, controversy continues to swell around the proposed location of the new

Waterford Hospital. Historical data and flood map analysis both show the

proposed location is prone to flooding.

Why is

the Minister of Transportation and Works ignoring these concerns?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

And I

thank the hon. Member for the question.

Mr.

Speaker, we are certainly not ignoring the concerns. These concerns actually

date back to, I think it was 2014 when Eastern Health went out and had a berm

design. Actually, they had an independent consultant come in and look at the

flooding issues in that area of St. John's, and the consultant back in 2014 said

there was need for a berm.

When we

heard back from the people involved in the plan for a new mental health

facility, they said they wanted it at this location to remove stigma and for

other reasons, Mr. Speaker. So then we asked the engineers to go back and look

at that study and see if there was a way to actually extend that berm, which we

have done, that makes the site safe.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the City of St. John's, who have done their own expert analysis, have

indicated they will never approve a development at that location. The deputy

mayor has said the proposal is nonsensical.

So,

Minister, why are you riding roughshod over the City of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we are not running roughshod over the City of St. John's. I have many

conversations with the Mayor of St. John's. Back in October of 2018, the deputy

mayor and all the councillors in St. John's were given a presentation that shows

the use of both berms, now the north berm and the south berm. We're actually

improving that area of St. John's.

If you

think about the investments that have been there over the last few years, we

have a new core science facility, we have an ever-expanding Health Sciences

facility and we have a new Janeway facility, Mr. Speaker. There's been so much

development in that area. With the new design of these berms we're not only

protecting the existing infrastructure, we're protecting future infrastructure

as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the proposed berms are not a guarantee, given the drainage can be

blocked by debris and storms. During Hurricane Igor, the Health Sciences Centre

came within inches of being flooded.

So why

won't the minister listen to these concerns and come up with a better plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite alludes to Igor, and that's the reason why there was need for a berm in

the first place. Anywhere we look at building, we take all these factors into

consideration.

But we

heard quite clearly from the mental health community. We heard quite clearly

from the people who suffer from mental health challenges and family members of

people who suffer from mental health challenges. They want this facility

attached to the acute-care facility. This is about reducing stigmas for the

people of our province, and we are committed to the plan to put the facility at

the Health Sciences Centre.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

remind the minister, I was a Member of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health

and I get the fact of removing stigmas, I'm all over that, but you have to put

it in the right place.

So,

Minister, maybe you could table the geotechnical studies that have been done in

this area, because we know changing water flows can have serious impacts

elsewhere. You're stopping it there, but it's going elsewhere.

Can you

table any documents or any studies, please?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, about a week ago in Estimates, I offered the Member opposite a briefing

to come into the Department of Transportation and look at the work that's been

done. And guess what? He hasn't taken us up on the offer. That offer stands. If

the Member opposite wants to come in and take that briefing, he's more than

welcome to come in.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I

asked the Minister of Environment to provide information on the proposed plastic

bag ban.

Can the

minister provide us a target date for implementation of the ban?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

mentioned yesterday, it was at the tail end of Question Period, that we did

amend the Environmental Protection Act

that would allow provisions within the Department of Municipal Affairs and

Environment to make the necessary regulation and policy changes.

Mr.

Speaker, we were really pleased when we went out and consulted. We had more than

3,000 people that weighed in in the feedback – the highest we've ever had on the

EngageNL website. Before the end of this calendar year, we hope to have a full

implementation of the plastic bags. But in the meantime, every day, there's no

reason why people can't start today to reduce the use of plastics in this

province. We encourage that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, government has

provided no information about the potential fees, the transition time, possible

alternatives, or when the bag ban will take effect.

Can the

minister provide details as to when and how this ban will be both implemented

and regulated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I think I did

allude to a time frame, before the end of this calendar year. We recognize that

we need to give people time to adjust. While there are many people out there who

are in support of this ban, sometimes these things, they don't happen overnight.

So we're encouraging people to reduce their use of plastic right now but, in the

meantime, the department continues to work on the regulations.

The

decisions that we make going forward are certainly being informed by these more

than 3,000 pieces of feedback that we have heard in the department through the

EngageNL website.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, we were told the

details of the ban will be set out in the regulations.

Will the

public be allowed to see the regulations prior to implementation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, we've been pretty open and transparent in this process to date. We

actually went out and we invited public comment because the success of all of

this – we wanted to know where people's thoughts were and if they were ready of

this Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that they will be able to

have further input.

I'll get

some information and I'll get back to the hon. Member on that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recently committed to ban all single-use

plastics.

Is the

provincial government committing to expand the plastic bag ban to include all

single-use plastics?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

reference to the earlier question, what I'll say to the Member is that the

consultations that we held did have very specific questions that will inform the

policy and the regulation changes that we make going forward.

Mr.

Speaker, there's no doubt when we think about climate change and we think about

greenhouse gas emissions and the direction we are moving in as a province and a

country, we want to reduce waste, we want to reduce plastic and we need to do

that.

The

science is very clear, Mr. Speaker. We have lots to be concerned about when we

look forward, even to the next decade, and we'll continue to move in the

direction that is necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

question is for the Minister of Transportation. During the summer of 2018,

portions of the Hansen highway, Route 490, to Stephenville were resurfaced;

however, certain sections of that resurfacing have started to deteriorate.

Residents of the area have been told that there is a two-year warranty on this

work.

Can the

minister confirm that this pavement resurfacing actually have a two-year

warranty?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. I can confirm that all work that's carried out

by the Department of Transportation and Works with independent contractors holds

a two-year warranty. We actually hold a bond, Mr. Speaker, on the materials and

labour for two years.

became aware of this situation on that highway back I think it was in late

winter early fall. Our staff have been there. Our engineering staff have been

there and looked at the situation. There's further analysis ongoing but we'll

continue to follow up on that, as we will with other circumstances we find

ourselves in in the province like this one.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, can the

minister ensure that the necessary repairs to the pavement will be carried out

before the warranty expires?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, we

will actually get to a conclusion of this in the coming weeks and I'll be more

than willing to share those findings with the Member opposite when we have an

opportunity to actually review what our engineering staff finds.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville – Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I thank the minister for

that.

During

the summer of 2018 while this pavement resurfacing was being carried out on

Route 490, a kilometre of road in the adjacent community of Cold Brook needing

resurfacing was not included.

I ask

the minister: Can he review the resurfacing of this one kilometre of road in

Cold Brook and take advantage of economies of scale and potentially have this

pavement resurfaced while the paving equipment in the area is doing the repair

work that's needed on the other one?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, anytime we're in a region, we always do try to take advantage of

economies of scale; but obviously, we do work within budgets. I'm not familiar

with the piece of road that the Member opposite is referring to, but I'll

certainly have a look at it for him.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next

question is for the Minister of Finance. I ask the minister: Did the request for

proposals for retail cannabis licences fall under the

Public Procurement Act and, if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

request for proposals went out through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I feel and I believe that they've done a good job in

rolling out that program, in providing access to the general public of retail

cannabis and of the procurement of the retail sites.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, a local cannabis

retail company, Better Leaf, was denied a retail cannabis licence.

When the

NLC's scoring matrix was released to us through ATIPP, the local cannabis

companies proposal ranked better than a large national organization whose

proposal was approved.

I ask

the minister: Why did Loblaws receive a retail cannabis licence over Better

Leaf, despite Better Leaf scoring better on their application?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

an important question; I thank the Member for the question. I believe the

Citizens' Rep reviewed this particular case and decided that the NLC made the

appropriate decision. I understand, in my conversation with the NLC in regard to

this decision, they did it because a tier 1 does not allow minors within the

store, Mr. Speaker, and there are safety concerns if an adult goes into a store

and leaves a minor out in the vehicle.

The NLC

retained the right, Mr. Speaker, in locations with only a tier 1 to look at a

tier-4 model, and the successful proponent got that model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, were there any

other applicants for retail cannabis licenses that scored higher than other

applicants that did not get licenses?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to

my knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Estimates yesterday, the Minister for the Status of Women promoted financial

support for additional groups this year, including for the Coalition Against the

Sexual Exploitation of Youth; yet, grants in the office are being decreased by

$210,000.

Can the

minister please explain why this is occurring?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for her question. Mr. Speaker, the Status of Women office

provides funding to various organizations across the province: women's centres,

Bay St. George women's council, the Corner Brook Status of Women, Gander Status

of Women Council, and the list goes on.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, should this budget pass in 2019, we will open a new women's centre

on the Northern Peninsula.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

The minister,

however, reported in Estimates yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that money is being

transferred to the Housing department.

Can the

minister explain and outline how much money has been transferred to Housing, and

what will this funding be used for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

across the way is right. In June of '18, I believe it was, funds and

responsibility for emergency shelters folded in under Housing, as well as did

transition that was from AESL, as well as did transition houses from health.

That was always a view of our housing first and putting a housing continuum

under one roof, it was felt that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing certainly had

the expertise over there to deal with some of the complex cases that we are

dealing with from day to day.

Mr.

Speaker, we were supportive of that and it's working well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the

Office for the Status of Women have specialized experts in issues relating to

women; however, the Newfoundland and Labrador's Housing mandate focuses

primarily on affordable housing.

Is the

minister confident that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is really the

appropriate body to ensure that these funds are used for their intended purposes

to support women?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

In Estimates

yesterday, we talked about funding for women's shelters.

Can the

minister, please, table details surrounding the capacity and demand of the

shelters they fund?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for her question. Yes, indeed, I will table this information for

the hon. Member opposite.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Is the

minister aware of any situations where shelters have been full and unable to

accept new clients?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to say

that safe, stable and affordable housing and shelters and transition houses and

all of those valuable programs and services we provide is certainly a priority

for this government.

One of

the things that we do in Housing is we do a lot of work with our partnerships,

places like Stella that provide wraparound supports. When there are Housing

needs in the province, if it's a case of a woman fleeing domestic violence or

anything like that, they certainly move to the top of the list and are

prioritized, and we do the best we can for those complex cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government wants to embark on deep-water drilling for our offshore in harsh

environments, where an oil spill will be nearly impossible to clean up. We have

an independent federal-provincial environmental assessment process but

government wants the C-NLOPB, the industry regulator, to take it over because it

would be quicker.

I ask

the Premier: Why would he compromise the environmental assessment and put our

marine environment at risk for the sake of expediency?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of

what was just said is actually incorrect. What we have asked for is to have

exploration removed from the project list to ensure that C-NLOPB, which are

really experts in our offshore, have the ability to look at the regional

environmental assessment, analyze the 30- to 60-day well, the impacts of that

well. They'll only be out there for 30 to 60 days, so minor geological

interruption. They will be able to have that information before them. That's

what we've asked for, is to remove exploration from a full panel, 36-month

review process. That is what we asked for.

As I've

said, as the Premier has said, as everyone in this province has said,

environmental assessment, environmental protection is critically important to

all of us.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is

in a conflict of interest. It regulates and works with industry, it helps

industry at all stages of development, but it is also supposed to protect oil

workers and the environment. The near-miss with an iceberg, the 200,000 litres

of oil spilled and the die out of seabirds would not have happened with tougher

regulations and monitoring.

I ask

the Premier: Why does government consistently refuse to consider an independent

offshore environment and safety authority like Norway's, as recommended by

Justice Wells in his Offshore Helicopter Safety Report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After

Justice Wells made his report, Mr. Speaker, they did make some changes. They

have a chief conservation officer, a chief safety officer that reports directly

to the board. So it removes that kind of interference with other operations of

the C-NLOPB. Justice Wells was quite satisfied with that. We only have four

installations offshore.

As I

said repeatedly in this House, this will be continued to monitor. As we continue

to grow our offshore, we will consider changes to that operations, but I remind

the Member opposite, we do have a chief safety officer, we do have a chief

conservation officer. This does satisfy the requirements of Justice Wells at

this time. As we grow, we'll continue to monitor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has

been months since the Husky SeaRose oil spill, the worst in the history of our

province of our offshore. In March, Husky gave the C-NLOPB a preliminary report,

which the offshore board has not released.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: How long will the public have to wait for

that report and to find out what happened?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

incredibly important to the people of the province. As I've said in this House

before, safety and environmental protection is paramount to everything that we

do. C-NLOPB has been investigating the accident that did occur in November. As

you know, the flow line has been retrieved. That is being investigated and

reviewed, and there will be recommendations coming from those investigations.

I think

it's critically important to the people of the province, what happened to that

flow line? What happened to the flow line connection at that particular time?

Was it a faulty flow line? Was it something other than that, so that we have

full information? They are investigating. Once we have that investigation, we'll

know what actions need to be taken.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the minister referred to seismic exploration as less impactful, but

there is evidence that these loud signals are harming plankton and other

species. Government just announced a 3-D seismic survey off Labrador.

I ask

the minister: Does she think the people of Labrador would not want an

environmental assessment of 3D-seismic testing when it had negative impacts on

salmon and other at-risk species?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Again, Mr. Speaker, they do

go through an environmental assessment process. That is part of what they have

to do and they also have to follow through appropriate mitigation measures that

are required.

I will

remind the Member opposite that there have been multiple studies, including a

most recent one by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that have not found

any impact. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, we still want to make sure that

the environmental impacts and the environmental assessment process is adequate

for the geological interruption.

I will

remind the Member opposite that this is a multi-client survey that is being done

so we have many, many people coming in on one survey versus having multiple

surveys in the jurisdiction.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Question has ended.

Presenting Reports by Sanding and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

provided a Ministerial Statement on June being Recreation Month and the hon.

Member for Placentia West - Bellevue asked if we supported recreation, why did

we cut funding. I want to read into the record we did not cut any funding to

community-based – there were absolutely no funding cuts to recreation in CSSD

this year.

We did,

however, transfer $500,000 from CSSD over to the Labrador Affairs office and I

did identify in Estimates that there was a reduction this year because the

Labrador Winter Games only happens every three years. So I'm not sure if that

might have confused the Member, but there have been no cuts to recreation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

answers to questions?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis – by a whisker.

MR. K. PARSONS:

A little bit quicker, Mr.

Speaker.

The taxi

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has been failing over the past six years

due to the rising costs of insurance and fuel prices. Smaller companies and

brokers have left the industry by ever increasing numbers because of the rising

costs preventing them from surviving.

Since

2015, accidents in the taxi industry have decreased by 34.7 per cent, yet

insurance costs have increased by 244 per cent. Fuel prices continue to rise as

well.

Insurance companies want to open in this province but cannot get a permit to

operate, thereby creating a restrictive marketplace for insurers.

THEREFORE the petition of the undersigned call upon the House of Assembly to

urge Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide help to the taxi

industry in this province to mitigate the rising cost of insurance, as well as

the rising cost of fuel.

The taxi

industry is a vital part of our province, providing door-to-door service 24

hours a day, seven days a week. Without assistance, the taxi industry cannot

survive.

Mr.

Speaker, we saw this a little bit when the House was open previously and we had

a demonstration here in the House from our taxi industry. They came in and I

know they had meetings with the Premier and they had meetings with the minister.

But, right now – and we're going to debate a bill later on today that's going to

take off the cost of tax on insurance.

But,

over the last number of years, people have to realize that the taxi industry is

a small business. There are 5,000 people indirectly involved in the taxi

industry. That's a huge industry in this province and they're finding it very

difficult because of the rising costs and competitiveness also in the

marketplace. We need to make sure that the industry – and they're as important

an industry such as the fishing industry, the mining industry. They employ a lot

of people. There are a lot of families involved in the taxis and we need to make

sure that this industry survives in our province. There are a lot of people

employed in the taxi industry.

And

they're like small businesses. I always say when I get up in the House that

they're the cornerstone of our whole economy. Small businesses have to survive

in this province and I call upon government to do more for the taxi industry.

Right now, when they go get their insurance, there's only one group where they

can be insured. Government has to be able to open the doors so other insurers

can come to this province and want to insure taxi drivers.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL for a response, please.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for the petition and I, myself, since July of 2017 have met numerous

times with the taxi industry – I can't even count the number of times – and the

minister prior to that also met with the taxi industry.

We just

brought in Bill 3 and Bill 6 regarding the automobile insurance. We're also

taking the tax off the automobile insurance. We've been working with the taxi

industry to put together a plan of action, a business-type plan to help them

professionalize their industry.

We're

just waiting, Mr. Speaker, for them to come back to us. They did submit one plan

to AESL and I'm waiting to have discussions regarding a secondary plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

WHEREAS

there have been numerous concerns raised by former inmates, family members,

correctional employees, and many members of the general public regarding the

physical condition of Her Majesty's Penitentiary. It has been further noted that

the programs which currently exist at this facility to deal with issues of

mental health and addictions are woefully inadequate.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately begin work on the

planning, designing and construction of a new, modern facility to replace Her

Majesty's Penitentiary, which focuses on rehabilitation and provides appropriate

programs and services to deal with mental health and addiction issues.

Mr.

Speaker, we know in 2008 there was a report that was completed, referred to as

Decades of Darkness . This report was

very important. It outlined the problems with correctional centres in our

province, particularly the penitentiary and the inadequacy of mental health

services. A decade later in 2018, the government published a report that Marlene

Jesso completed on the tragic deaths of inmates at provincial correctional

facilities, including the penitentiary. Again, the report pointed out the

inadequacy of the facilities and of mental health and addictions treatment

services.

It is

all well known to us that a large proportion of inmates have mental health and

addictions challenges to deal with. These challenges, they've played a role in

the actions that brought them to prison; they may play a role in sending people

back to prison instead of towards rehabilitation. Clearly, it's in the best

interest of all of us to focus our correctional services on rehabilitations.

Our

prisons should not serve as asylums for those who need mental health and

addictions treatment. Replacing the penitentiary must be complemented by

significant reforms in mental health and addictions treatment. A new facility,

in and of itself, is not going to address the underlying issues. Better

treatment is required at our new facility, one that is designed for the 21st

century and is geared towards rehabilitation rather than mere incarceration.

So, Mr.

Speaker, there are many things that we have to consider. The most important

thing is helping inmates deal with the circumstances they are in, showing them

the possibilities and helping them to begin the journey towards rehabilitation.

Let's work as partners to advance work on this important priority.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. HAGGIE:

I'm fighting with my

colleague from Transportation and Works.

The

short answer is that building a new penitentiary is a more complicated

endeavour, I'm told, than building a new acute-care hospital. There's $1.6

million from Transportation and Works going into it.

But I

would really like to refer the Member opposite to two documents. One is

Towards Recovery and the other are

around the statements that we made about transitioning health care for inmates

into the Department of Health and Community Services. We have already done a gap

analysis between the services offered by Eastern Health and those in the

penitentiary, and we have the director of health services in corrections within

the department working to align those gaps.

We are

on track to completely take over health care, physical and mental, in an

integrated way for all corrections inmates by the end of this calendar year, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I stand again

today with a petition on behalf of the people in Western Newfoundland in the

province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS

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

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

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

experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

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

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

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

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

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, once again I stand on behalf of the people that elected me and people

who contacted me all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am

pleased that the announcement will be made very soon for the new hospital with

the radiation unit. That is great news. And also room for the next available

technology, PET scan or whatever it may be, that's great news.

So I was

encouraged by the Minister of Transportation's comments that he is working with

all the interested parties to try to get 90 per cent of local workers hired at

the construction site. That's good news. So I commend the minister for working

with all the partners on that. I just hope that we can get it done, get it

resolved before the construction starts so that we don't have to have people on

the protest line asking to have jobs in the local area, driving past while

they're going to Port aux Basques. It's an opportunity for us to have great

skilled labour in the area, of all Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot in Western

Newfoundland, no doubt, to build this hospital.

I've

been encouraged on many occasions throughout the whole election, before the

election, after the election, that I present these petitions and I will continue

to do so on behalf of the people who elected me. I encourage the government, and

I know the minister's working on it, to try to have something resolved before

the construction starts so that we can have a smooth construction season with

the hospital, and that we can have local people, at ease with their mind, with

their families, knowing that they'll be home for the next three to four years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, currently the

coverage of Lucentis/Eylea under the NLPDP is being capped at a maximum lifetime

of 15 vials. No other province in Canada limits this number of treatments for

their patients arbitrarily like this.

Without

treatment, patients with ongoing ophthalmic medical conditions that require this

treatment are at a very high risk of losing vision. Many patients are losing

their vision and are being denied access to appropriate and approved eye care as

a result of financial barriers.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the cap of 15 vials per lifetime.

Mr.

Speaker, I reflect on a tagline on a commercial from years ago. It was by some

sort of vision organization and they said: Next to life itself, vision is God's

greatest gift. Let's pull the religious aspect of that out, but truly that is

the case. Without vision, we would not be able to enjoy the life that we all

share.

I have

two constituents now that I'm dealing with on two separate occasions which are

victims of this financial barrier to treatment that they require to maintain

their vision health. These are individuals that are able to operate

independently. They live in their own apartments. They look after themselves.

They contribute in the volunteer community and now, all of a sudden, because of

$1,700 every three months, their quality of life is going to rapidly deteriorate

and, subsequently, they will become an increased burden on our provincial health

care system.

When I

look at this limitation being put on this drug coverage, I cannot see how it's a

financial benefit to remove an individual's independence and make them become

dependent on the health care system for full-time provision of their health

care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It's a

little difficult to hear. Please continue.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call

Order 3, second reading of Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice, that Bill 1 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak in the House today about

an act that we're

introducing to the Revenue Administration

Act that will eliminate the remaining 13 per cent tax on automobile

insurance. In Budget 2019 we were

pleased to announce this change, which will be a significant reduction to the

tax burden faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We've

spoken at length about the economic climate that forced us to add the original

15 per cent in 2016, and it is not something that anybody on this side of the

House wanted to do nor were any of the measures that were necessary in 2016. As

we've gone about the business of turning our financial situation around, we've

always kept that fact in mind. I've committed on many occasions, as has our

Premier, that as we're able to provide tax relief to the people of the province,

we would do so.

Last

year in Budget 2018 we reduced the tax

from 15 per cent to 13 per cent, effective January 1, 2019. At that time we

planned further 1 per cent decreases in 2020, 2021 and 2022. However, this year

we recognized that there was some room to make the full change and remove the

remaining 13 per cent while remaining on target to return to surplus in

2022-2023.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when you ask people in this province what taxes they'd

like to see removed, the answer would be all of them. Our job as a government is

to determine which taxes will have the widest range and positive impact on the

general public while balancing the need to generate revenues to fund important

programs and services.

As with

so much of what we do, Mr. Speaker, it's about a balanced approach. The balanced

approach has kept us focused on the retail sales tax on automobile insurance.

Motorists across the province are required to have automobile insurance, and so

this tax is one that affected the vast majority of residents over the age of 16

in this province.

Furthermore, automobile insurance rates have an impact on businesses and any

business with a company vehicle, and even bigger impact on any business with a

fleet of vehicles. So by reducing the tax on automobile insurance we are having

a positive impact not just on members of the public, but also on many businesses

across the province. It is for that reason that we have prioritized reducing

this tax ahead of others.

Mr.

Speaker, now that we are removing the retail sales tax on automobile insurance

entirely, the next time we have an opportunity for a similar reduction we will

once again balance the potential positive impact on the public with the

potential downward impact on our finances and we will make prudent fiscal

decisions. Fiscal prudence remains the order of the day for this government. It

is something that we speak often with our bond-rating agencies about. It's

something that we speak with our lending agencies about.

recognize that there is a new dynamic in this hon. House, and that we need a

collaborative approach in making decisions. I welcome collaboration, but I say

to all Members of the House that the people of the province didn't elect a

minority government simply so that we could return to the days of reckless

spending. They didn't elect a minority government so that other parties could

push for tax breaks and spending increases with short-term political popularity

gains while leaving tough decisions on how to fund those decisions to the

government in power.

They

elected us to work together to make the decisions necessary to help our province

prosper and to continue to recover from the fiscal crisis that was faced in late

2015 and 2016. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that in collaborating

together that all Members consider the need for balance. We can always discuss

new programs, new tax breaks, new tax initiatives, but those discussions need to

occur simultaneous to frank and honest discussions about balancing the offering

of decreased revenue and increased spending with where the money comes from.

Mr.

Speaker, it is not realistic to talk about decreasing revenues for the province

and increasing spending in the province without finding where that money is

coming from or without returning to a fiscal crisis as we saw in late 2015.

The

taxes that are collected by the province, Mr. Speaker, pay for vital services

such as health care, education, post-secondary education and infrastructure.

They all come from a combination of tax dollars and provincial revenue. Any

discussion around taxes that doesn't recognize this is not realistic.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll only take a few more moments as I would like to explain how the

change to this elimination of automobile sales tax will roll out. We've received

some questions, and I want to make sure that we clarify how this will happen.

We've

made the decision to make these changes retroactive to the day that it was first

announced by the Premier, which is April 15, 2019. These changes will be

finalized once the legislation receives Royal Assent, at which point rebates

will be organized and issued to those who've renewed their insurance between

April 15 and the date that this comes into legal force.

We've

had discussions with the insurance industry and it is understood that the

insurance providers will help by providing the rebates to their customers who

renew during the interim period, and that government will reimburse the

insurance providers. We will work to do this as quickly as possible. Mr.

Speaker, passing this legislation is a vital first step to ensuring that people

get their tax breaks.

With

that, we'll open it for debate.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to stand up and speak on the Act to Amend the Revenue Administration

Act. I certainly wish that we were talking about more than just simply the

elimination of the insurance tax. I remind the minister, if you didn't put it

on, you wouldn't have to take it off.

Having

said that, the previous Liberal administration in 2015-16 told us they had no

choice but to implement a massive tax regime. At the same time, though, as they

said they had no choice to do that, they also committed to a 30 per cent

reduction in expenditure. At the same time, the previous Liberal administration

have clearly and publicly said we do not have a revenue generation problem, we

have an expenditure problem.

Up to

2019-2020, that expenditure problem has not been addressed. We still see the

same expenditure in 2019-20 as we saw in 2015-16. So, as a result of that, there

have been no major reductions as promised by the previous Liberal

administration. Instead of focusing on stimulating the economy, we have focused

rather on keeping the taxes in. It's basic economics that says if you want to

shrink an economy simply add more taxes. If you want to grow an economy take

some of the taxes off. They have failed to do that.

The

minister has told us now that he will return to surplus in '22-'23. There is

nothing in the budget in '19-'20 that's going to move that target forward. It's

about the next three years, and there's a billion dollars worth of savings that

the minister has to find over the next three years. Previously, we asked for the

details around the billion dollars, $400 million-and-something in revenue, 617

in expense. We've gotten no details on that, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

the minister said they had no choice but to put the taxes on and they couldn't

take them off. Well, they had an opportunity during their budget preparations to

do more for the people. They brought in additional revenues from the federal

government through the offshore agreement. They chose to use those revenues for

other priorities. Their priority was not to reduce the tax burden. Their

priority was not to put money back into the hands of the people of this

province, whether it be insulin pumps, medical transportation, home insurance or

child care expenses.

Anything

that would've put more money back into the pockets of the people of this

province instead of the pockets of government would clearly have helped, but

they chose to ignore that. As a result, we will continue to pay an occupancy tax

for the next year and we will continue to pay taxes on home insurance, and the

people of the province will still be burdened with all of the other amounts they

have to pay out.

So I

think, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day this is a start, but it's not the end.

There certainly could have been, should have been a lot more deliberations into

their budget and how they decided to spend their money, but we look forward to

seeing what next year brings when it comes to expenditure reductions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Again,

as I always say, it's a privilege to get up here in the House of Assembly and

represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and the people in it.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill is something that in 2016 when the budget first was announced

that there was an awful outcry in our province, where people were hit with 300

tax increases and also 50 new taxes. There were protests, there were people out

on the steps of Confederation Building. Everywhere in my district that I went to

people talked about the increase in taxes and how it was going to affect them

and how they were going to survive. Small businesses in my area, and other

people that I dealt with, had the same concerns. Now we step ahead almost four

years later and we see the effect it had on the people of the province.

This is

a tax, Mr. Speaker, that's different than a lot of taxes. If I decide to go out

and have a meal some night, I'll pay taxes. I know that the tax is something

there. It's a choice that I'll make. If I can afford it, then I'll do it. If I

want to buy a car or something like that, it's a choice that I make and I'll

have to do it. Insurance is something that we all need to have. Now, meanwhile,

there are a lot of people out there who don't have it, but it's something we all

need to have.

I'll

always remember speaking to my next door neighbour when the 2016 budget came in.

His biggest concern at that time was the tax on insurance. What he explained to

me – now, he's a senior. Right now, I think he's probably 82 years old. So in

his late 70s at the time. And as being a senior, and many seniors in this

province, and many people who are on fixed income, what they do, they take what

they bring in every month and they calculate it. They take what they spend every

month and they calculate it. Those calculations are done on things that are

essential for them: their light bill, their telephone bill, their groceries and

insurance on their vehicles, insurance on their home.

When you

put a 15 per cent increase on that, it had a huge effect on a person who's on a

fixed income because that's an increase of a part of that budget that they

budget for. Most people – and I always say seniors because they're on fixed

incomes, they can tell you right to the dollar what they have to do with their

money, whether it's gas, how much gas they spend a week and everything else.

So, here

in 2016, along with all these other increases that we put on them; we put 15 per

cent on the insurance on their homes and insurance on their vehicles. The burden

it cost to those people was unbelievable. Like I said, my neighbour, who, at the

time, was in his late 70s, out of the all the increases in taxes, the 300 that

they increased, the 50 new ones that they brought in, this was his biggest

concern because he had a budget and the effect that that had on their budget was

unbelievable.

At the

time, we argued here in the House of Assembly, we went back and forth and we

discussed it, and I know on this side of the House at the time there was only a

few of us, but we all brought up the cost of insurance, the cost that it was

having on people. Then government looked at it and they realized, yes, okay,

we'll going to give a little bit of relief.

So, last

year's budget in 2018, they said we're going to give you a little bit of relief

– not right away, but as of January 1, 2019, we're going to take off 2 per cent.

Then they were going to do a real big thing for the next – the plan was to take

off 1 per cent in 2020, 1 per cent in 2021 and 1 per cent in 2022, but then, Mr.

Speaker, all of a sudden, there was an election call. An election call came and

government realized that what we've done to people over the last four years,

they're not very happy about it. We have to find some way to get relief to the

people of the province because we need their votes.

This

would never be done. There would never be 15 per cent. We would've stayed with

the 1 per cent, 1 per cent and 1 per cent, but this government said, okay, we

need to get the votes of the people, so by buying votes we'll reduce the tax on

insurance by 15 per cent.

Mr.

Speaker, I heard the Minister of Finance say the people of the province gave us

a mandate. They were so close to being the first government ever in the history

of Newfoundland and Labrador to be kicked out after one term now that they have

a minority government. That's the first time that's ever happened in this

province. We've never seen a government in this province that's only been

elected one term.

Yes, you

got a mandate, but the people of the province have spoken, Minister, and they've

spoken to you and said listen here, this wasn't right what you did in 2016. All

these increases, all these burdens that you put on people wasn't right, and

people have spoken, and they've spoken loudly. I hope the minister and

government are listening to the people across the way.

Mr.

Speaker, we look at a thing we've spoken about in this House a lot of times and

it's one thing that really bugs me. You hear it in the mornings on the news

sometimes, and you'll hear about uninsured drivers. I think there are some cases

that uninsured drivers are just there because they don't care, they're going to

go on and drive and stuff like that. But sometimes uninsured drivers, it's

because people really can't afford their insurance. I don't know, I'm wondering

if there was an increase in the number of uninsured drivers in this province

because of the burden that was put on them on their tax rate. I don't know, but

I would assume there was.

A normal

person, a thousand dollars, I mean it's another $150 to pay on your insurance.

People don't have that kind of money so I'm wondering how many seniors, how many

people in our province took the chance and said I can't afford the insurance; I

really can't afford to do it; I got to keep my lights on; I got to put groceries

on the table. So often does that happen?

I spoke

a little bit about seniors. In my district, I make a point to attend everything

I can to do with seniors 'cause I really appreciate them, and I know most of the

people in this House of Assembly appreciate what seniors have done for us. We'd

never be in this place if it wasn't for our mothers, our fathers, seniors that

paid the price for us through wars and everything else. I know everybody in this

House, I'm sure, respects the seniors in the province and what they've done for

us. But we put an awful burden on them by increasing these taxes, by putting 15

per cent extra taxes on them to have to pay. Like I said, they're on fixed

budgets. It is a fixed budget that they are trying to pay.

We have

a duty here as people that make the laws and make the rules and regulations for

the province. We have a duty to the people of the province. In 2016, government

chose a different route than I would've chosen. I would never have taxed the

people to death like they did. I would've never put increases on 300 taxes. I

would've never put the burden of 50 new taxes on them. Government should realize

the results of what you did was wrong. It didn't work out the way you wanted it

to work out.

Your

view of adding all these taxes on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador failed

because our economy is not in that good of shape. This was supposed to – we had

to make these drastic moves so the economy could grow, so that jobs can be

created, so that our whole economic overlook would be brighter in the future.

Well, Mr. Speaker, after almost four years, is it brighter – is it brighter? No,

it's not. No, it's not brighter.

It's not

brighter for the people of the province. The people of the province spoke only a

short while ago and they spoke to your government and said, listen here, what

you did to us in 2016, we can't forgive you for it. That's the reason why we're

here with a minority government today. Never before in this province have you

ever seen a government lose after one term. Never ever happened, because people

give them a chance to do the work; but, in 2016, the choices that you made were

too drastic and they caused a lot of hardship to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We will

support this. This is something that we got to be able to support because we

need relief. I look forward to government giving more relief to the people of

this province – give more relief. As the Minister of Finance or the previous

minister of Finance talked about putting their hands in people's pockets, now is

time to take your hands out of people's pockets and put a few dollars back in

them.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to speak to this bill very shortly, not for a very long period of time,

just to respond to my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis. I don't intend

on responding to a lot of what he said, the back and forth and the people. I

just want to respond to a specific point that he made which was: Did this lead

to an increase in uninsured drivers? The answer is no.

suggestion is that the issues that have led to increased insurance have led to

that, which has been coming over a long period of time since, in fact, 2005.

We've seen premiums, which are not just a Newfoundland and Labrador issue; it's

a Canadian issue, certainly an Atlantic issue, where insurance premiums have

increased dramatically. That's been the biggest driver of that.

So I

just want to put that out there. There's absolutely no correlation. So again,

I'll take my seat at this point. I just wanted to point that out to that

specific point and I'll sit down and listen to the rest of the debate.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to get up here and represent the District of Exploits and have a chance

to speak on this bill. The insurance bill, of course, it was expensive for the

people of this province, seniors, the working class. Everybody that pays an

insurance bill, they know what it's like to be paying this insurance, Mr.

Speaker. To cancel the insurance means more money in the pockets of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they need that because we pay too much for

tax.

It's

more affordable income; it gives more allowable spending. They want to do things

they can't afford to do. They're almost confined in their own homes because

their insurance is too high. People can't afford to do anything anymore. They'd

like to go out and buy a lunch. They'd like to be able to take somebody out for

a meal or something like that, but they can't afford to do that. That cuts down

on the restaurant business; it, cuts down on other businesses.

Speaking

of businesses, I heard the minister and people there talking about this is

recreation week. Every recreational vehicle today requires insurance. So you got

quads, you got side-by-sides, you got snowmobiles, Sea-Doos, boats, Argos and

other recreational items all taxable for insurance. So you take that off –

people can't afford to have those items anymore, Mr. Speaker.

I know

in our area, in the central part of the province in Exploits, without those

vehicles we don't get around sometimes. People are using their vehicles for in

around the woods, snowmobiles in the wintertime. That's another recreational

business that's afforded from the tax of insurance that they can use this. In

our area, small gas stations, the smaller stores, the recreational outlets,

everybody can avail of more spending from the savings that we can see from

insurances for those individuals.

Mr.

Speaker, people need to be able to afford to do that. Nobody wants to see a

working fellow work 40 hours a week, come home, I can't do anything. My wife and

I can't go anywhere. All we can do is sit in the house, because we either got to

pay our light bill this week, we got to pay our fuel this week, we got to buy

groceries this week, and we also have to pay our tax on insurance when the

insurance bills come up.

So, Mr.

Speaker, that is all affordable spending, monies that can be collected from

those insurances that makes it easier for living. I've heard it from door to

door about the insurances. People just can't afford to do those types of things

anymore. They can't afford to take a trip – not a trip down south, anywhere like

that, but a trip just in here to St. John's from our area. They can't afford to

do that because they don't have the money to allow them to do it. Taking the tax

off insurance would certainly alleviate some of those pains.

I did

hear someone say about the seniors on fixed incomes. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that

becomes a big problem. They're in their own homes the same way. They're

wondering if they're going to be able to afford their heat this week or their

food this week.

Mr.

Speaker, a lot of people, as we went door to door, and we heard it during the

campaign, that the taxes are one big issue that the people didn't want in this

province. Of course, they gave us the reasons why they didn't want it. They

showed us on election day what they wanted and what they didn't want. They

certainly didn't want to be paying taxes.

So, Mr.

Speaker, to see some of that alleviation off the insurance will be great. We'd

like to see the full part of the insurance tax gone, but I guess we'll have to

wait for another day.

With

that, it leaves money for young families probably to build their families a

little bit more, be able to afford to get more stuff for children, to be able to

feed them, give them better, healthy foods. I know even on the campaign, like

people were saying I can't afford to have the healthy food, the bananas, the

apples, the oranges. Because of the tax increases today, we got no money to be

able to do that stuff. That might even help them to live a bit healthier, maybe

cut down on their health costs in the long run. A savings on the insurance, it

certainly helps to put money in various other sectors.

Mr.

Speaker, people need to be able to afford some recreation. They want to be able

to do things that they couldn't do before. The insurance monies and all those

taxes really places a burden on all our society, every one of us.

The

working class are the ones spending the money. They say we're paying a lot of

taxes. We got two cars, we got a boat and we got a Ski-Doo. We got all that kind

of stuff, so we're paying more taxes. They'd like to have those vehicles and

have those recreational items. That's where our economy grows from that, because

of those younger people who are spending the money in our society today and

keeping this province – that are spending the money.

Then,

like I say, the elderly, the seniors who are after paying their way for us, they

deserve a break on the insurance, Mr. Speaker. They don't need to be saying we

can't afford groceries this week. They need a break, too.

It can

give us a lot of affordable spending that we can put in other directions to keep

this province flowing moneywise, to keep spending, to keep people doing what

they want to do. That is a good start with the tax on the automobile but, like I

say, we'd like to see more because we need more affordable spending, Mr.

Speaker. There's not one person in this province who wouldn't like to say, I

want to do this, I want to go here, I want to go there. I heard it every day at

the doors. I really did.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll look forward to having another say on another bill on

another day.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

privilege, of course, to rise in this House and speak to this bill. I certainly

can't dispute that it's a good move. While campaigning recently, this was

certainly one of the issues that was raised at the door. Even as recent as

yesterday, I had my neighbour ask me about the tax on auto insurance.

I think

when we look at what the Minister of Finance talked about, he talked about a

balanced approach. He talked about the impact this would have on businesses and

the public, which, again, you can't dispute. Any time you eliminate a tax, it

has to have a positive impact.

He also

talked about prioritizing and eliminating taxes over others, and he talked about

a balanced and positive impact. He talked about fiscal prudence being the order

of the day. Again, it's not something we can dispute. But to talk about it and

to implement it and to address it is a different matter.

When you

look at the mandate, or call it the mandate or whatever, when you have 57 per

cent of those who voted, who didn't vote for you, I believe that tells a story.

When you got 43 per cent of the voting population that have voted for you,

that's not a majority; 50 per cent plus one would be a majority. So that's

telling. I think in all the districts and all the doors that we went to – and I

say we, all 40 Members, we're getting the same message. There's no way we didn't

get the same message. The same message is: We're taxed to death. They talk about

mitigation for Muskrat Falls, of which there is a $200 million dollar figure

somewhere that's going to happen, occur. So, we hear all these things and they

can't be ignored. The garbage tax is another one people talk about; the 1.6

kilometre.

So when

I go back to prioritizing and eliminating items over others, we've been told at

the doors what the public want, what the public need and we've offered to

co-operate on putting a new budget forward, for making adjustments to budgets. I

don't think anyone over here mentioned cut, slash, burn – not mentioned over

here at all.

I do

appreciate where such comments may come from in terms of well, if you got to

make it up somewhere, you got to get it from somewhere else. We agree with that

statement but we're not talking about cutting, just going out slashing and

burning. We're talking about what the minister actually said: prioritizing;

being prudent how we do this; having a balanced approach.

That's

all we're asking over here is when – eliminating tax on auto insurance, they

were going to eliminate bit by bit but certainly they're heard what the public

have asked for and they eliminated it, carte blanche, gone. Hopefully they'll do

the same with the levy and get rid of that right away.

At the

end of the day, we have to look at what the people of the province want. We know

the budget that went through. I mean, over the years, the history – all

governments come out with an election budget. I don't think it's ever happened

where one came out where we couldn't debate it, but that's another story. So we

can't be offering and going out and offering this and that, $200 million here or

$129 million for infrastructure, $40 million for low carbon economy programs.

I'm not disputing that they're not needed or they're not valuable, but there's a

whole shopping list of what the public have asked us to do.

We have

an opportunity now. No one expects you to come in and drop all these items down

in a year or in a few months. Every plan that comes out by government is, in

this particular instance, we're going to hit a balanced budget in 2022-2023. We

know that doesn't happen overnight. We know you have to do that. But we have an

opportunity here now to take what the public have told us. We basically have a

census done.

We all

went banging on doors; we heard from everyone what they want, what they don't

want. This is an opportunity to take what we heard at the doors now and apply it

to the budget. Maybe not the current budget – no one's expecting that to happen.

But we know in two or three, four months all the departments will be sharpening

their pencils and probably their erasers and they will be getting down to the

brass tacks of looking at what we need in a budget moving forward, department by

department.

Then

we'll go to the public – we'll have public consultations maybe in January. But

we've already done that. We've gone out; we know what the public want. It should

be fresh in all our minds as we go forward and talk about this. And we get it in

reports that we get. We talked about the Goss Gilroy report that's out there.

You did not need a crystal ball – and I agree with the minister on it that up to

that point it's probably anecdotal information, but there's been many studies

done on it.

But the

greater percentage of the population out there, their prime, prime driver for

them staying in this province is jobs – long-term, permanent, meaningful jobs.

And if they leave the province, it's for jobs. If they leave the province, it's

following the spouse or partner who got a good job. If they leave, they're

following someone else. When they leave, grandparents, kids, they all leave with

them. So then you look at our declining population. Our tax base – that's our

tax base going down. We should be trying to work as hard as we can to get more

people working and paying less taxes than having less people here and pay more

taxes.

If you

look at the data – and I'll specify the data because myself and the minister

have had discussions on whether to use seasonally adjusted or unadjusted data –

take the data from last month, statistics on May month. So year over year

unadjusted data, from this May to last May, we are the only province that has a

declining labour force – declining labour force. Now we may be creating jobs

over here, 300, but we lose 400 over here. Yes, we've created jobs, but we've

lost jobs. We have to get our labour force up and we have to get them out

working. You look at the data again, no surprise to anyone. Our unemployment

rate is the highest in the country; our immigration rates, the lowest in the

country; our fertility rates are dropping; our aging population is just going up

immensely.

So we

have to work on creating the environment – government doesn't create jobs.

That's not our job. Our job is to create the environment to allow businesses to

create jobs. And I agree with the Minister of Finance when he talks about

eliminating this tax will help businesses, but there's far more that we have to

do – far more. When you look at the reports we get and you hear it at the door,

jobs, jobs and jobs are there high up on the list.

Taxation

is next, and there are so many forms of taxation that we need to address. This

is one we're addressing, one of many. In my district, the garbage tax they call

it, how much is charged for cabin owners to have their garbage collected, some

want it and some don't want it. These are all charges that we need to look at.

I'm telling you, when you're dealing with individuals like an aging population

like us – this is seniors' month, you talk about seniors on a fixed income. We

may not be really drastically affected by a tax because we're making an income,

but some of these seniors on fixed incomes, every small percentage affects them.

So, I

totally support this tax reduction, but I have to say that we have a long way to

go. We have an opportunity to make some changes here, to make some fixes, not

immediately, but moving forward we all know what we heard at the doors, we need

to take what we heard at the doors and we need to make real changes in going

forward with this budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

distinctly remember when this tax was put in place. Friends of mine, close

friends of mine came to me, with no political stripe, no more interest in

government and they were very, very adamant when they said to me this tax is an

attack on the middle class. They were distressed by it. They thought it was an

unconscionable burden placed on them.

particular, it was a particularly hard burden for anyone who, perhaps, was

operating a small business, that used extra vehicles, or households that have

more than one vehicle, or households with young drivers who perhaps are using

that vehicle to go to further their education and post-secondary. They were

absolutely disturbed by the fact that this tax was an attack on the middle

class. It was very concerning for them.

This is

very nice to see now that the repeal of this tax goes to one of the fundamental

platforms of the New Democrats, which is to improve affordability for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. In particular, in the face of rising costs, in the

face of the expected or anticipated rise in electricity rates that we're going

to see from Muskrat Falls, in the face of increases in the consumer price index

which means that every day things like buying groceries or filling up our gas

tanks, let alone running our vehicles, is going to become more expensive. So

recognizing that affordability for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is

paramount removal of this tax will present quite a relief for individuals.

We have

seen there's been a great deal of debate around the insurance industry.

Certainly, one of the concerns about this proposed bill we have is, how will the

clause associated with anyone who would cancel their insurance immediately after

having insurance, cancelling their insurance right after that, how would they be

enforced if they are cancelling their insurance immediately after paying it. We

have some questions around the logistics of that. Certainly, I'd like to see how

the minister will address that, but we do look forward to ensuring that all

drivers on our roads are insured and insured at reasonable rates.

This

also dovetails into the highway enforcement act. Of course, we are very

concerned about the safety of our roads and the integrity of our roads as well.

So as we see improvements in the highway safety act, as well as enforcement of

the highway safety act, we are going to see our individuals becoming safer on

the roads as well as having slightly more affordability.

addition to that, we are very concerned about road conditions in the province.

Certainly, Newfoundland and Labrador has seen a substantial number of roads that

have been on the top 10 list of worst roads in the province. In having some of

the worst roads in the province, that means you are much more likely to have

suffered damage to your vehicle, which can mean your deductible is lost on your

vehicle; or, if you make an additional insurance claim associated with the bad

roads, that will drive up your rates as well.

We are

also very aware that Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the highest insurance

rates in Canada. One of the things that I'm quite concerned about is increasing

in those rates as well. So it's certainly improving the safety of our roads and

improving the ability for individuals to drive on those roads and not have

damage on their vehicles is a very, very important piece.

We know

government is taking steps to lower the cost of insurance, and the Public

Utilities Board has been involved in a heated debate about insurance premiums.

In fact, many of those exchanges between the Insurance Board of Canada and a

group of personal injury lawyers that form the Insult to Injury campaign that

sought to protect accident victims did result in the PUB being released from its

duties on January 29 and that committee was still in divide at that time. So,

obviously, this is something very important to a great many people and it's very

near and dear to absolutely everyone in the province.

We are

very acutely aware of the importance of access to personal vehicles for

individuals, because we do not have a public transportation system available to

everyone in the province. So until we get to that point where we are able to

offer a public transportation system to everyone in the province, we want to

ensure that everybody has reasonable access to a vehicle that is thoroughly

insured so that we can shore up public safety for the individuals driving, as

well as the individuals who may be involved in an accident inadvertently along

the way.

Government has offered a number of lists of measures to stabilize the rising

cost of insurance which increases our current deductible from $2,500 to $5,000

for bodily injury claims. While that is reasonable and may lower the cost, it

does of course present a little problem for individuals who will have to pay

that deductible. So that is disconcerting as well. It is very nice to see that,

though, we are eliminating that tax. If I were to go back and talk a little bit

about the rising cost of insurance, I'd like to expand that a little bit more to

not only car insurance but also home insurance.

I'm not

sure if anyone is familiar with Mark Carney, who is currently the Governor of

the Bank of England, but he has done a number of talks on the implications of

climate change. In particular, one of which is trapped assets, which I'd love to

have a conversation with, when we talk about trapped asset in terms of using our

oil resources and the possibility of actually having those trapped in the

ground, but today to concentrate on some of the implications of why we might

have those trapped assets is climate change is a substantial and significant

issue facing our province.

Mark

Carney, in many of his addresses, has pointed out that hundred-year storms are

going to happen more and more frequently. In fact, they may happen on 10-year

intervals. That's just a rough estimate of how regular that will happen.

More

importantly, with the rising incidence of significant weather events, whether

that be hurricanes or flood waters or winter weather storms or any other weather

event that leaves a destruction to property, means that our insurance rates, our

insurance companies and our insurance plans have to pay out for those damages.

So as the number of storms happen and as the damage becomes more substantial,

we're going to see more and more insurance claims, and as those insurance claims

continue, our premiums will continue to go up and up and up.

We have

a far more significant issue associated with that, because we cannot live in a

society where our homes and our property are vulnerable to the weather and acts

of God, and we are no longer insured by those. So people will be reluctant to

purchase homes, to purchase insurance. The way in which they construct their

homes is going to have to be reconsidered as well.

While

the removal of the tax on insurance is a very reasonable and preliminary step in

the affordability of insurance, I think that it is only scratching the surface

on some of the costs that we are going to see imposed on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the implications for affordability in our

province. So we really need to be cognizant of what those implications are and

what we, as government, can do to improve the lives of individuals in the face

of this uncertainty.

Again,

this is a very preliminary measure. It is a good measure, I am certain. I will

go back and talk to the individuals that spoke to me and told me that the

imposition of this tax was an attack on the middle class. I will go back to them

and very happily tell them that that tax is being removed, but I will also make

sure they are aware that there are some other things that we need to continue to

lobby for.

I will

certainly make sure that the people of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi are very

well informed that this tax has been removed and how they can go about claiming

the rebate, if they have paid their tax between the time that this bill has been

enacted and when that was originally announced on April 15.

So, as

we are very aware, people do have a need to own a vehicle. It is paramount that

they be able to afford that vehicle and afford to be able to operate that

vehicle, but also be able to insure that vehicle because public health and

public safety is absolutely vital as well.

While I

commend the minister for repealing this tax, and I will support this bill, I do

think that we are only scratching the surface on the need and importance of

lowering our insurance costs. I think, creatively and collaboratively, we need

to find a solution to rectify the situation, lest we all be stuck in a situation

where we cannot afford our insurance, or we are left with a home that has been

destroyed by weather that is no longer insured. That is going to put us all in a

much more difficult position.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to stand and speak on this for a few minutes. It's good news for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the insurance itself for automobile,

house and properties is rising on many occasions.

I don't

want to shirk away from this also, Mr. Speaker. I was part of the government

that brought in that decision. The reason why is that we were so much in debt at

the time and we were almost bankrupt. These were the kinds of decisions that we

had to make. No one wanted to make them – absolutely no one wanted to make them.

I was sitting around the table and we all went through all of our options. One

thing we did say is that we will repeal this as quickly as we can and the

Minister of Finance has done that the first opportunity.

When

you're looking at possible bankruptcy of the province –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

You can't hear me? The

Minister of Finance says he can't hear me. The first time that ever happened.

But, Mr. Speaker, when you're looking at almost bankruptcy in the province and

there's a possibility of not even paying day-to-day bills, there had to be tough

decisions made. There had to be. No one wanted to make those tough decisions –

absolutely no one.

I'm very

pleased that the government lived up to the commitment that it would be taken

off at the first opportunity. I do not want to shirk away to say that the

government is bad for bringing it in. I was a part of it. I take responsibility

for it. I definitely stood with the government at the time. I agreed to the

decision at the time because of the financial situation that we were in.

If we

just look at the Muskrat Falls inquiry, just think about the money there, when

it went from 6.2. When we were in Opposition here, we said there's no way it's

going to remain at that. We said from Gate 1, to Gate 2, to Gate 3 decisions

that they were wrong. We said taking out the PUB was wrong. Those decisions back

then are why the government at the time had to make the very tough decisions in

If you

look at just one issue at the Muskrat Falls inquiry, just one, the $300 million

increase, overnight. Just think about it. Do we know what you need to bring that

measure in for the income tax, just that alone? That we said was going to

happen. We had a filibuster here, almost five days, on the Muskrat Falls. We

begged the government at the time. We did everything possible. We tried to work

with them. We asked to bring it back to the PUB.

We said

it couldn't work, and it never. We were right – we were right. I know most of

the Members in this House on the Opposition side were not here, so I exclude the

Members here, I'm just talking about at the time. So this is not on the PC

Party, this is just on the government at that time, because some Members weren't

here and you had no responsibility. So I just want to make that clear also.

But at

the time when we stood back here and we were going through this I think it was

4½, 5 days – I think one of the longest filibusters, if not the longest in the

province. We were saying that we can't afford Muskrat Falls. There were cheaper

options. The demand forecast was off. When you remove the PUB, the governing

body from it, we're going to have complications and we're going to have

problems, which we did have. Then we said that the decision gates we never had

all the information. We said all that. We, as the Opposition, and I know the

premier, at the time, was leading the charge with us. I stand by that that he

did lead the charge with all of us.

remember the night the filibuster ended. I remember the night we were out in the

caucus room. As the Opposition, by the time the filibuster ended, I think it was

4:30, 5 at night, that day, there were three of us sat down, we did up a press

release saying that any excess sales outside the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, we committed then to put it back in for rate mitigation to the people

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was done 4:30 in the morning.

That's how committed we were and the government at the time to do it.

So at

the time, a lot of decisions that were made around Muskrat Falls, the

government, which I was a part of, would not have been in the position that they

were in. And it's tough at the time when you come in in 2015 and have a budget

in 2016 and you have to make tough decisions.

remember a quote, and I always remember this. It was Clyde Wells. It was back in

1992 and there was a big fuss going on with the teachers, and some of the

teachers with their long memories can remember this in 1992. It was the fall of

1992 and we're going into the election in 1993 and then he was rolling back and

the teachers were next and they had a very frank discussion that he was doing

it. And a lot of people were upset. A lot of people were upset at the time,

saying that we're going to lose the election.

remember Clyde Wells – and then he came to me at the time, because I was very

close to him and I spent a lot of time with him. They said: Can you talk to

them? I remember driving out to Gillams with Clyde Wells – this is why I have so

much respect for the man. I said a lot of people are concerned what's going to

happen here. You're making a tough decision. I remember him looking at me, he

said: Eddie, I rather lose with honesty than win with dishonesty. That's what

Clyde Wells said at the time to me. That makes so much sense.

So when

we were in government at the time in 2015 and the books was presented to us, we

could have sugar-coated that and pushed it down the road, but the government at

the time, which I was a part of, said no, we can't. We got to make tough

decisions. We apologized. I did on many occasions to the residents saying that I

wish we didn't have to do it. We wish we didn't have to do it, but we had to

face reality, and the reality was that we were almost bankrupt.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at why we're doing this today, we had to put it all in

relative terms when you go back in 2011, 2012, 2013 with some decisions that

were made that put Newfoundland and Labrador in such a bankrupt position and the

decisions that were made there weren't thought out, they were never – and then

we hear it now at Muskrat Falls inquiry how much politics was involved with it.

Instead

of making the right decision, demand forecast was off, the cost was off, the

timing was off when we were going to have first power, all of that is what we

all knew at the time. So I commend the government and I commend the Minister of

Finance for bringing this in because there was a commitment. The minister at the

time wasn't even in the Cabinet; he was the Speaker I think at the time when

that decision was made. It was a government decision that we would bring it

back, eliminate it at the first opportunity and the government did. I got to

recognize that.

apologize to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a

tough decision at the time, but it was a decision that we took it on the chin at

the time to make because we had to make it. I remember Clyde Well's words: I'd

would rather do it with honesty than with dishonesty and pass it on down the

road. So, Minister, I'm glad that it was brought forward today. I will be

supporting this bill and I just want to put in context of why it had to be done.

I heard

the Leader of the Third Party talking about the mitigation and the climate

change, and that's so true. That is so true with a lot of damages across. It's

just not here. It's all across Canada, all across the US, all across the world,

but we're just a microcosm. When you have Newfoundland and Labrador and we can

see the disasters that happened over a number of years and someone brought up

Igor today – Igor is something we never seen before. That is such a phenomenon

in Newfoundland and Labrador, the damage that that caused.

Again,

this is where I have to give some credit to the federal government in part of

their disaster mitigation, some that cover size and some of the projects you can

increase by 15 per cent to help with current changes in the weather patterns. So

when the Leader of the Third Party brings up about climate change and how we

have to start looking at new ideas and how we're going to handle this, if not

the insurance rates will go so high that a lot of us won't be able to afford it,

and that is so true.

This is

part of not just the Government of Newfoundland over here, this is a part of all

of us here through new ideas and green ideas that we can create a new economy.

The federal government also is a big part of it. When you see the fires out

west, that firefighters said we'd never ever seen before, this is all part of

the insurance package all throughout.

I know

the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is working with communities

and municipalities to help with flood mitigation and other opportunities. So I

just want to recognize that what the Leader of the Third Party said is so true.

We need to work on that collectively, not just pointing fingers, all of us

together to come up with ideas for it.

So I

will be supporting the bill. I will be explaining to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador how they can get their rebates.

remember when we passed the budget, I went out and gave a speech probably two

nights later. I took it on the chin. I went out and said, look, here's why we

had to do it. Some people may not like what you did, but I think when it

happened and when you run the following election and win by 70 per cent as an

independent, people respected you for what you did. So I don't shirk from it one

bit. I wish I didn't have to do it, but I am so proud that the government did

follow through on the commitment to eliminate it.

I will

be supporting the bill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, it's a pleasure once again to have the opportunity to speak this time

on Bill 1,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. Of course, what we're

talking about here is repealing the retail sales tax on automobile insurance.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, obviously, this is something I would be absolutely familiar with

because this was imposed in 2016 and I guess the events of 2016 and the budget

is what kind of shaped my political direction from that point forward to where I

find myself today.

I will

say, Mr. Speaker, at the time – and I'm not going to get into harping on

Budget 2016 and all the taxes and

fees. It's ancient history; it happened. There have been explanations given on

both sides and different perspectives as to why it happened.

certainly respect what my colleague for Humber - Bay of Islands said, and I

would agree with him that there was nobody who wanted to raise taxes. Let's face

it, what government in their right mind, what politician in their right mind

would want to raise taxes.

For me,

at the time, and I maintained at the time – I still maintain to this day – it

wasn't about the fact that I did not recognize there was a need. It wasn't the

fact that I didn't realize from a financial point of view that we were

definitely on the down trend. Certainly, the price of oil, as we know, the

bottom dropped out of her. I will disagree, to some degree, with my colleague

for Humber - Bay of Islands about the cause of it.

There's

no doubt that the Muskrat Falls Project – which I voted for, by the way, in good

faith, and I've said that many, many times. I don't shirk away from that either,

because I did. With the exception of the equity stake that was going to go into

it, regardless of whether it ballooned or not, the real effects of Muskrat Falls

is yet to happen because it's all loans that are going to come due in the next

year or two.

What

really got us in the mess, to my mind, as I look back – if hindsight is 20/20 –

but when you look back, it was really the fact that the bottom dropped out of

her in terms of oil, and the fact that when times were good and the money was

flowing like water in this province – we had that period of probably eight to 10

years where there was lots of revenue coming in – that as fast as it was coming

in we were spending it. That's what really happened.

I've

heard Members in the past talk about what road wouldn't you have paved and what

building wouldn't you have built, what school and so on. It's not the capital

that did it. It was the operational. It was hiring more programs, more programs,

more programs and more staff. We've seen the size of the public service expanded

to – I'm not sure what the percentage, but I heard someone tell me something

like 30 per cent expansion, 40 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

The minister said 50 per

cent.

MR. OSBORNE:

From 40,000 to 49,000.

MR. LANE:

There you go. From 40,000 to

49,000 employees.

course, once you take on that responsibility for salaries and so on, then it's

not like a capital project. It's not like saying, well, we built five schools

this year. Next year we don't have as much money, we'll build two schools. Once

you take them on, you have them for good. That's an ongoing commitment, which is

why the government is now engaged in this attrition plan, which I absolutely

support. I think that's really what got us to the point that we reached, but

there was no doubt at the time that something had to be done.

debated in this House at the time, even though I voted against the budget, I did

say at the time I recognize that something had to be done. What I kept hearing

from people in my district, and other Members at the time did as well, was a

case of too much, too fast. That's what we heard. It was too much to be dumped

on us all at the one time, with the fees and the taxes and the levy.

The levy

was the big one. I'm glad to see the levy will be gone after this year, which

was – in fairness, it was put in the budget at the time that it would phase out

over four year or five years or whatever it was. So after this year that will be

one. The gas tax is now gone. The 16½ minus – and, of course, the 4½ back on

with the carbon tax. So really it's 12 cents down from what was done at the

time.

The levy

will be gone, and now we're going to see the insurance tax on vehicles gone;

albeit, the homeowners insurance will remain. I believe the homeowners

insurance, according to the minister in Estimates this morning, that was going

to net us about $50 million or thereabout. So if we were to cut