PDF Version

May 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 21

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to our public gallery today Ms. Tammy Powell, who is the sister

of the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, visiting from Alberta.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Virginia Waters Pleasantville,

Conception Bay South, Exploits, Stephenville Port au Port and Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to highlight that St. Paul's Junior High continues to

excel both in academics and co-curriculum activities. Creating a culture of

caring and support, the school provided an opportunity for students to travel

after school to the Conception Bay South arena to watch the finals of the 14th

annual Frank Roberts Junior High School hockey tournament. With over 70 students

and half the staff cheering on their school hockey team, the boys won gold.

St.

Paul's has also had tremendous success in their technology and science

divisions. The school has been named as one of five regional finalist schools

for the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow Challenge. The students will work on a

real-world project to help better their school and community while inspiring

them to engage deeply in the STEM projects.

Students

are hoping to win up to $50,000 in Samsung technology for classrooms. The

journey so far has been extremely educational and will provide a foundation for

success among students.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating St. Paul's hockey team on their

victory and wishing them the best of luck in the Solve for Tomorrow Challenge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 16, I had the opportunity to attend and present gold, silver and

bronze Duke of Edinburgh Awards to 35 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 their stories of personal growth and commitment as they

embarked on various challenges and opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate gold recipients: Steven Rideout,

Jonathan Payne, Ryan Letto, Carissa Haines and Jenna Broders; silver recipients:

Krista Greeley, Nathan Lake, Emma Jacobs, Kelsey Smith, Kristina LeDrew, Sarah

Fagan, Sara Burry, Katie Currie, Sara Priddle, Matthew Broders, Karley Morgan,

Leah Pomeroy, Luke Strickland, Madison Tarrant and Miguel Santos; and the bronze

recipients: Michael Chaplin, Anna Crocker-Kennedy, Benjamin Duggan, Michael

Judge, Rebecca Wiseman, Kyle Lynch, Madison Clairmont, Erika Hiscock, John

Peyton, Madison Fahey, Luke Budden, Tanner Hudson, Simon Smith, Amie

Crocker-Kennedy and Laura DeGruchy.

This is

quite an accomplishment and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize the Bishop's Falls Lions Club, which last year

celebrated its 50th anniversary. 2016 was also the 100th Centennial Celebrations

of Lions International, and the Bishop's Falls club joined Lions around the

world in reflecting back on their successes in community service.

The

Bishop's Falls Lions Club was formed on April 22, 1966 and currently has 35

active members, and two life members. Over the past five decades, they have

served their community with dedication and have raised over $1 million to

contribute to the development and well-being of the citizens of Bishop's Falls

and surrounding communities.

The

Bishop's Falls Lions Club contributes towards many causes such as the White Cane

project, the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp, Freedom to Move, the Janeway

Children's Hospital, Ronald McDonald House, the Special Olympics, Red Cross and

more. Lions Clubs exemplify community service and selflessness and have always

been at the forefront of any community issue where their help is needed.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in commending the Bishop's Falls Lions Club on their

50th anniversary and five decades of exemplary community service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize four outstanding students from my district. Amber Murphy of

Stephenville, a graduate of Stephenville High School in 2013, and a recipient of

the Terry Fox Scholarship, completed a Bachelor of Health Sciences Degree at

McMaster University. Amber has been accepted at Queen's University Medical

School and has received an $80,000 scholarship.

Michael

Gilbert of Noel's Pond, a 2013 graduate of Stephenville High School and the

recipient of a $60,000 scholarship to UNB, has completed an honours degree in

science. Michael has been accepted to MUN School of Medicine.

William

Forsey of Kippens, a Stephenville High graduate in 2011, attended StFX

University and was the recipient of the President's Scholarship. He graduated

with a business degree. He's accepted at the University of Calgary Medical

School.

Bethany

Power of Lourdes, a graduate of Piccadilly High School in 2013, attended MUN's

Grenfell campus and received the Leslie Harris Scholarship. She recently

graduated with an honours degree in science. Bethany has received a summer

research grant of $8,000 and she will attend MUN School of Medicine in

September.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating these exceptional students and wish

them well as they embark in their medical studies.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

May I have your attention, please?

I rise

to recognize an extraordinary group of young people that recently showcased the

very best of Labrador theatre on stage at the Provincial Drama Festival in St.

John's.

May I Have Your Attention,

Please? is a

powerful and moving play that explores the theme of suicide a topic that is

all too familiar to residents of Labrador. It was the first time in 41 years a

team from Cartwright won the honour to represent their region at the

provincials.

Suicide,

Mr. Speaker, would be a difficult subject for a theatre troupe of any age, but

this group of students performed it with empathy, heart and sincerity. I believe

it should be performed in every school in the province to raise awareness of

this important topic.

On May

5, I had the pleasure of being in the audience at LSPU Hall when the Ponderosa

Players received a standing ovation for their truly exceptional performance.

Well done teacher, Ms. Piercey, Heidi, Claire, Aaron, Kieana, Andrew, Marcus and

special mention is warranted for Tyler Mugford, who won the Outstanding Actor

Award. Cartwright, and indeed my entire district, is tremendously proud of this

team.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the Ponderosa Players of Henry Gordon

Academy.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

rise in this hon. House today to outline a major milestone our government has

reached in the implementation of regulated midwifery into the provincial health

care system.

announced publicly this week, a midwifery consultant has been successfully

recruited. She will work with the regional health authorities, and other key

stakeholders, to lay the groundwork for midwifery in our province.

Gisela

Becker has been recruited as the provincial midwifery consultant and brings a

wealth of experience and knowledge to the position, including direct care,

leadership, advocacy, teaching and research. Ms. Becker has practised in a

variety of settings in Germany, the Caribbean and Canada and has extensive

experience in rural and remote midwifery services and collaborative maternity

care.

Mr.

Speaker, Ms. Becker's recruitment builds on the introduction of the

Midwives Regulations , which came into

force last September under the Health

Professions Act . She will begin work in September of 2017.

I ask

this hon. House to join with me in welcoming Ms. Becker and in marking this

significant step in bringing midwifery to our public health care system.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We would like to join with

government in welcoming Ms. Gisela Becker to the new role of Provincial

Midwifery Consultant. The discussion surrounding the benefits and use of

midwives in this province has been happening for some time. I'm happy to hear

that we are finally ready to proceed.

Midwives

are professionals who work in partnership with women to give support, care and

advice throughout pregnancy, during labour and the post-partum period, as well

as provide care and support to the newborn.

The care

includes preventative measures and the detection of complications in mother and

child. In addition, the midwife has an important task in health counselling and

education. We believe midwives and their expertise will add great value to our

overall health care system and we look forward to further progress.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased that the

midwives regulations are in place and that the department has engaged Ms.

Becker, who comes more than highly recommended. I know midwives are really

pleased.

We will

benefit from her experience and expertise in reinstating midwifery in this

province, but I'm disappointed that the implementation plan does not include

immediately setting up the midwifery program within the regional health

authorities so that midwives will be completely public within our public health

care system.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise today to recognize Mr. Paul Antle, Ms. Gloria Parsons and Mr. John Patten

as inductees into the 2017 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.

For 27

years Junior Achievement has recognized and honoured entrepreneurs who inspire

others through their investment and success in both business and community. This

year's inductees are certainly deserving of this distinction given their

achievements with their businesses and their efforts to improve the world around

them.

Paul

Antle started his first business venture from his mother's basement and he has

not looked back since. He used his master's degree in engineering to broker

hazardous waste disposal services, and later pioneered environmental industries

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, Paul is a respected community builder and

is president and CEO of Pluto Investments Inc.

At the

age of 26, Gloria Parsons entered the construction industry in 1972 with a Grade

11 education, and turned it into the Parsons' Group of Companies. In the early

1990s, Gloria created Chancellor Park, a long-term care home in St. John's,

where she now serves as president and CEO. Gloria continues to receive

recognition for her accomplishments while quietly supporting her community.

After

graduating from university in 1978, John Patten worked his way up the family

business of Browning Harvey, until being appointed president in 2005. John has

never hesitated from his vision of growth, and has adapted to the ever changing

marketplace by making investments in plant infrastructure, facilities and

technology. I had the pleasure of touring his company, actually, just a few

weeks ago. He is a recognized leader both locally and nationally, and a proud

supporter of numerous charities.

Mr.

Speaker, these individuals are role models for the next generation of leaders,

and deserve to be acknowledged for their excellence in business leadership,

professional achievement and contributions to society.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Paul Antle, Gloria

Parsons and John Patten on being named 2017 inductees to the Junior Achievement

Hall of Fame.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I join the

minister in recognizing the work of Junior Achievement and those who have been

recently inducted into the 2017 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.

congratulate Mr. Paul Antle, Ms. Gloria Parsons and Mr. John Patten on being

inducted into the Hall of Fame. Business leaders, including all the members of

the Hall of Fame, form a cornerstone of our province's economy. Their

contributions to our business community help provide jobs for many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and create economic activity.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to recognize the valuable work the Junior Achievement

program undertakes. My daughter just finished her three-year program in the

Junior Achievement and this bracelet, actually, is one of their products for

this year. I've seen the value of this program and the valuable skills they've

learned and the communication, leadership and management along the way.

Once

again, I want to congratulate this year's recipients.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm very pleased to

congratulate the latest inductees into the Junior Achievement Hall of Fame. They

certainly are role models for future generations of entrepreneurs and leaders.

Small-

and medium-sized businesses are invariably started by people with ambition and

vision. Starting a business is always a struggle and a gamble and there is no

guarantee of success.

Government must provide resources to encourage new entrepreneurs, but they also

must be sure not to unnecessarily impede or harm them, and a $5,000 fee on

iceberg water comes to mind, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that government

will continue to retain EY for the Muskrat Falls oversight. Close to $2 million

spent to date, no reports, yet EY will be kept on by the Liberal government

indefinitely.

Why is

EY being given a blank cheque to stay on indefinitely with no idea of what their

scope of work is?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

correct the Member opposite. What I did say, and I have been saying, is EY is

being engaged to finalize last year's report, the interim report that clearly

laid out some very good recommendations to get the Muskrat Falls Project on

track. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as the people of this province know, this

government is working very hard to make sure the Muskrat Falls Project is on a

better course than it had been under the former administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as for how we

might engage a company going forward such as EY, there are discussions with the

Oversight Committee on the value of that independent assessment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister referenced very good recommendations; indeed, they may be,

but why not share them with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The minister also stated the

Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee was too busy to report publicly.

When did

the minister find out they were too busy, and what actions did she take to have

them meet their quarterly reporting requirements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll

correct the Member opposite. I think he might have some alternate facts in

there; he's using them liberally today.

Mr.

Speaker, the interim report contained a number of recommendations. It has been

available to the public since April of last year. As soon as we got the report

we made it available to the people of the province because we had to clean up

this government had to clean up the mess of the former administration with

regard to the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker.

Those

recommendations, we have been working methodically and diligently to implement,

and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, because the efforts of this

government have been bearing fruit, and the Muskrat Falls Project has been on

track and has been working well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the challenges to preparation for the UNESCO designation Mistaken

Point are well known.

Can the

minister advise if the manager of environmental education and promotions and

World Heritage project manager was released from duties without cause in April

2016 when there was so much work to complete, to be done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Mistaken Point and its UNESCO heritage designation is very important to

this government. One of the things in the management plan was the hiring of

three extra staff people this year. That has been done, Mr. Speaker. Our new

department had some management restructuring, Mr. Speaker, but that was done in

breaking down silos and in the best interest of the province.

Thank

you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the project management plan and the

interpretation plan for Mistaken

Point are essential components to maintaining UNESCO status.

I ask

the minister: Who is now responsible for executing these plans?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as the Member knows full well, that two weeks ago tomorrow I sat down

with the Member opposite and the ambassadors for Mistaken Point. We made a

sincere commitment to that organization that as a government we take our

obligations to UNESCO, to Mistaken Point, to the Portugal Cove South heritage

group, Mr. Speaker, we take that very seriously. At the end of the day, I'm

responsible for what happens at Mistaken Point this year and I will live up to

that responsibility.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I recognize the hon. minister, we did have a meeting and I give him

credit for that. At least we had a discussion. I think he has some understanding

of what the importance of this is. We haven't seen that in the first 17 months,

so I do give him credit for having the meeting, but there are still many

questions and much management that's not being done at Mistaken Point.

Can the

minister advise if the individual relieved of duties related to Mistaken Point

was indeed terminated without cause, meaning the individual was doing a good

job, and what was the cost paid out to that individual?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to get into individual human resource files in my

department. What I can assure the Member opposite, though, Mr. Speaker, is that

we've made commitments to Mistaken Point. We met two weeks ago tomorrow. I've

committed again to meeting with the ambassadors at Mistaken Point next week. I

invited the hon. Members opposite to join me in that meeting, and we will

continue to meet with those people to fulfill our obligations.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm not disputing the fact

that obligations have been met, but it's a great speech. All I'm asking for,

there's a management plan, there's an

interpretation plan, this position was

overseeing those plans. That person is no longer available.

So I'm

asking you: Who is overseeing these plans for the implementation required for

Mistaken Point? A straightforward question: Who now has the responsibility to do

that? Because in our meeting you didn't identify it, so tell us today: Who has

the responsibility for it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm responsible for Mistaken Point. It's a part of my mandate and I

will live up to those commitments.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Again, I thank the minister

for his answer, but it doesn't answer the question I asked him. There was a

human resource person in that place. It was taken out, removed without cause. I

assume payment was made out to that individual and the requirement is still

there, so he hasn't answered the question.

Could

the minister advise if the individual who would have overseen UNESCO inscription

nomination planning and key to implementation of those requirements over the

past year is still receiving remuneration from the Provincial Treasury?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I said a few

moments ago that I'm not going to comment on individual human resource files,

but if that's information that I can provide to the Member opposite, I will

certainly get it for him.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Estimates recently, we heard of a position with Government House which cost

taxpayers almost $400,000 to remove an individual, again, without cause. Now we

have a needed position for a World Heritage Site that was removed again without

cause.

Can you

explain why you would not have secured this position for Mistaken Point? As we

all know, it's much needed.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I think I've

been clear to the Member opposite. We understand our commitments to UNESCO, the

commitment we made at Mistaken Point. We understand the management plan.

Last

year, there were 10 employees at Mistaken Point. This year we are at 13, because

that was a part of the management plan, Mr. Speaker. We're going to continue to

live up to our commitments to Mistaken Point.

Like I

said to the Member opposite earlier, I've sat down with the group. I'll be

sitting down with the group again next week and we will live up to our

commitments for Mistaken Point.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Liberal government is projecting that employment and jobs will fall every year

for the next five years by 1.9 per cent this year, 2.8 per cent next year, 2.1

per cent the following year, 1.2 per cent in 2020 and by another 1.4 per cent in

What is

your government doing to strengthen economic conditions for businesses in our

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question because it was actually the budget of 2015 that the

Member is questioning, which was the budget that she voted for. It was the

previous administration that put it in place. If you go back to the economic

indicators in the 2015 budget, Mr. Speaker, it was their previous administration

that actually put those indicators in place.

Mr.

Speaker, the real impact there is not so much about the decisions in 2015-2016,

it's really about the poor planning of the 10 years prior to that where we saw a

government that were running deficits when oil was at $100 a barrel, were not

concerned about economic diversification, were not concerned about the fishery,

tourism, all those things that would have helped us in the situation we're in

today. They ignored what they could have seen and should have seen coming in

their future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the

Liberals campaigned and led the electorate to believe that their captains of

industry had a plan. A 10 per cent drop in jobs is no plan.

The Economy 2017 document reported

that in 2016 the unemployment rate averaged 13.4 per cent, and in 2017 the

unemployment rate is expected to average 13.9 per cent.

Will the

minister acknowledge that despite an election promise of an economic growth

plan, your government is actually projecting that the unemployment rate on its

watch will continue to get worse?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

been just over a year, a year and a half now, since this government has come in

place. The first thing we had to do was secure the financial footing. Mr.

Speaker, we could not even borrow based on the plan that they had put in place.

They

talk about their plan. Well, why don't they stand by their plan today which

would say that it's $80 a barrel? Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Member

opposite is completely out of touch with the realities around the oil industry

because the plan that they were campaigning on was completely false. It would

have led to not only just the economy, the province as a whole.

We have

secured the financial footing of our province, Mr. Speaker; now a focus on jobs,

a Cabinet Committee on Jobs. In case she missed it, a big impact in her own

district last week about the investments we are making into agriculture just to

start.

Stay

tuned, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I'm certainly very proud of

the aquaculture industry that the Tories gave great strength (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

In Estimates, I asked the

minister for an update on the national housing strategy and this province's

position. She could not answer, saying instead that she would provide me with an

information note.

Minister, how come I have not yet received that information?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government is working very closely with our federal partners to establish a

national housing strategy. We're partners in the plan. I'm not sure if the

Opposition understands what that actually means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I believe in

Estimates we answered some questions on the housing strategy. I did tell the

Member that we were working on the provincial housing plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Well, we're getting a lot of

condescending attitude but not many answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Minister, it's been two

weeks. This should be a file which you are very familiar with. A housing

strategy impacts many people of this province who cannot find suitable and

affordable housing.

Can the

minister provide this House with an update on the strategy today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker,

I am very well aware of the plan that we are putting in place. We've done

provincial consultations. We have evaluated every single program in Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing, Mr. Speaker, and we will put forward a plan the end of

June. This government will put forward a program and plan the end of June.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to showing the Opposition, and to showing the province,

the work that we have done on some of the programs that the Opposition put in

place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, I asked for an

update on the strategy in Estimates, I asked for an update here again today. If

housing and homelessness was truly a priority for the minister she would know

this information.

I ask

the minister: Why does she not have this information readily available, or at

least an update, for this hon. House and the people who so desperately need this

housing today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

all hon. Members the only individual I wish to hear from is the individual

recognized to speak.

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly

understand why the Member is saying they need it today because they didn't deal

with it at all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my

previous answer, we have evaluated every single program at Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. We are engaged in housing and homelessness, Mr. Speaker, and

we are working on a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a

January 12, CBC story entitled: Biofuel timber decision coming soon, the local

MHA says an announcement is only days away. Through Access to Information we

discovered that was not reality. Officials from your department in a response to

the comments stated: I have no idea where he is getting his information.

Will the

minister tell me where the MHA for Exploits got his information?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

What I

can tell the Member opposite is the Member for the District of Exploits has done

an admirable job for his constituents in advocating for

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

this business opportunity,

and there certainly is a business opportunity there.

As a

department, we've worked with this company. We've had some back and forth

discussions. We've signed an agreement in principle for the fibre.

There's

a basket of fibre located in Central Newfoundland that was left to the province

after they expropriated the mill in Grand Falls, incorrectly expropriated the

mill, and left us with a burden of environment concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, we will work with the people of that region to make the best use of the

resource that's there.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The January CBC story gave

false hope to many in the Botwood area, but we now know that a deal is not

imminent and much work remains to be done to even know if such operation is

viable. People deserve to know the facts rather than the political spin.

When

does the minister expect the deal with NewGreen to be finalized?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has just stated, there's a tremendous

opportunity for the fibre that exists in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a company that is interested. They are certainly working through their

process. There was an agreement in principle put in place. They will go out and

do their financing or do their process that takes place to realize opportunities

that exist from this fibre and make appropriate investments and go through that

process.

We're

always open at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for

anybody who has a business proposal or wants to do business in Newfoundland and

Labrador, to have that discussion with our team of experts that we would have in

business analysis and individuals to advance the economy.

We've

had a lot of great discussions with the MHA for Exploits and advancing that

issue for Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, why was the CEO

Appointments Commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm really glad

the Member asked this question because I think it's an important lesson about

the, I guess we call, signature legislation that we introduced here in the House

of Assembly last year.

The

to a degree. Therefore, it is exempt from Bill 1, the Independent Appointments

Commission legislation, because the trustees who they prevented from being

elected for years, the trustees who were elected last November when we returned

democratic governance to the school districts, they decide that not the

Department of Education or any Member in here.

If he

wants to be involved with that maybe you should run for the school board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

This is the minister who

talks about the same trustees that he doesn't take their recommendations

seriously, particularly, around building schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

With respect to the new

contract, did the minister make any changes to the conflict of interest clauses

for the new CEO?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the

Member to listen when he asks a question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KIRBY:

I mean, really. I just said

we don't make that decision here. I have advised the chair of the board of

trustees of my concern. I can provide him with a copy of that letter if he'd

like. I have advised the chair of the board of trustees of my concern regarding

conflict of interest but, again, unlike the previous administration that decided

to run the school district from the eighth floor of this building, we are

letting the trustees do the job that they were democratically elected to do next

November. When they arrive at that decision they will make that determination.

I'm not

going to dictate to them like the four ministers that stood here when I was in

Opposition (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I think history will show

something different in the near future.

On the

day that the former CEO resigned, the minister stated that he was concerned

because of an indisputably perceived conflict of interest.

Did the

minister feel the same concern when he found out about the clerk's conflict?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly happy to stand up here today and speak about conflicts of interest.

Again, it's something the Premier has noted that we're going to look at this

legislation which is quite dated and the previous administration, which had over

a decade in office, had an opportunity to fix. As we've been doing in the last

17 months not 24, I would say to the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune

we'll fix this up the same way we've been fixing many things up.

The

Member likes to talk about conflicts of interest, but I still haven't heard a

good answer of why they let deputy ministers resign to run elections and then

get rehired the next day without any competition. I look forward to that answer.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

We've seen recently about

firing people and then hiring back some of their own friends, so there's a

conflict.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, last year,

Coley's Point Primary and the school in the Mobile region were axed from the

government's plan. One year later, and the Liberals fund a school in the Liberal

district but ignore the other.

Why is

the minister playing politics with our children's education?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, it's highly

ironic that the Member stands in his place and talks about hiring his friends.

He should look behind him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

During a hiring freeze in

this province he hired the gentleman who now is in the seat for CBS. He hired

him during a hiring freeze as his second executive assistant, which doesn't

exist anywhere in our government. He made a special position to hire his friend

after he didn't get elected in a by-election.

Now, if

that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I mean,

really.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

Their leader said recently

that we should remember history. He should remember his own history. So the next

time he talks about conflict of interest, please just turn around and look at

the gentleman sitting behind you before you make allegations about this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I must remind the minister,

it's not funny when people expect access to proper education and so does Coley's

Point, but so does Mobile and so does Riverside Elementary also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

It's not funny around

education.

When

asked in Estimates about the cost of the EY library report, the minister told us

to check what the media had reported.

Considering the library report is months overdue, their cost of over $187,000,

are there any additional costs added to the EY consultant's costing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know

where, again, the Member gets his information from. This report is not overdue.

When it was initiated, at the request of the provincial libraries board, I gave

a ballpark figure, I suppose I was trying to estimate when I thought, last

June, when it might be released.

So there

was no deadline put in place. We wanted the work to get down properly. I am

pleased to advise the Members of the House of Assembly that I understand that

report will be released imminently. When that report is released, I will provide

a full accounting of what it cost.

But

again, we're not going to be lectured by people about cost. They spent $40

million on the Corner Brook hospital and all we got is an expensive dog park.

They know nothing about financial management, and I'm not going to be lectured

by people who manage money like that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to point out to the Minister of Education in November of 2015

the people of CBS hired me, and I'm very proud to represent them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Minister, you confirmed in

Estimates that your government would be relocating Crown Lands to Corner Brook

on July 1.

Can you

confirm today that the move to Corner Brook is still scheduled for July 1?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for the question. The relocation to Corner Brook is something that's a

priority of our government because of our emerging priority that we've placed on

agriculture, and it's about breaking down silos.

Mr.

Speaker, what I can tell the Member opposite is we're going to work with our

employees and we're going to work with our bargaining unit to make sure this

transition is as seamless as possible for those who wish to take positions in

Corner Brook.

Mr.

Speaker, right now we're working with our employees to have the relocation to

Corner Brook completed by the 1st of September.

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.

I'm glad

he confirmed there is a change of dates. You also said in Estimates you would

have all Crowns Lands records digitized by the end of August over 70,000 of

them; many of which are very fragile and require special care. We learned that

you just started to digitize Crown Lands records last week.

Are you

delaying the move to Corner Brook because now you admit the move was poorly

thought out and you cannot get the required work done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

The Member stands up here and asks us questions week after week about Crown

Lands. He never does bring out the facts; I guess it's the alternate facts

again. Because the reality is, the Crown Lands office in St. John's will still

be there. So if a person in this province wants to do a Crown Lands application

in St. John's, the office will still be there to do that, Mr. Speaker.

The work

in the vault is on track. The work in the vault actually came out of the

Lands Act review that was done by the

previous administration. This is not a new thing. They identified the problem

and we're fixing it.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South, for a quick question.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

second largest municipality in the province and one of the fastest growing,

isn't it time now to consider a dedicated police detachment of the community of

CBS?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

appreciate the question from the Member and recognize the growing community of

CBS. In fact, I'll be out there tomorrow to recognize the police officers of the

year, and I look forward to that and invite the Member to show up.

What I

can say at this point is that, on many occasions, my staff and I have had

conversations with the community about policing. This issue has not been raised,

but my office is always to open to listen to representation to ensure that we

continue to provide safe policing to every part of this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Government plans to eliminate the MCP fee code that pays doctors to give flu

shots. We are told people can go to community health clinics, but community

health clinics are limited in number and already have long wait times.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services what extra resources has he put

into community health clinics to accommodate thousands of additional clinics as

doctors stop holding flu shot clinics.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

it would illustrate things better that if you have a patient with a belly ache,

they go to their family doctor. The family doctor bills the taxpayers $31. If

they're offered a flu shot at the same time, the family doctor extra bills the

taxpayer $17 for a service that can be provided down the corridor, free of

charge, no extra charge to the system. That is the logic behind the change.

There

has been no reduction in the availability of flu vaccines. The vast majority of

doctor-administered flu vaccines are done in the setting of existing community

clinics.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There's

no hall going down to a clinic when I go to my doctor, so I don't know what he's

talking about.

Doctors

administer flu shots to 60,000 people annually, half the provincial total. We

have the second lowest flu shot uptake in the country, which could get worse. In

2015-2016 there were 218 flu hospitalizations, 49 ICU admissions and 8 deaths.

I ask

the minister: How many more costly hospitalizations and deaths will occur by

closing off this vital access to immunizations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

If the

Member opposite wishes to visit her family physician for an office visit, she

can still receive the flu shot. It will be provided free of charge both to her

and the family physician concerned.

There's

no diminution in access, Mr. Speaker. It's simply a question of reducing extra

billing and using people to their full scope of practice. We really don't want

physicians with 10 years of training sticking needles in folks when there are

nurses down the corridor who can do the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, on December 6

the minister held a news conference promising access to Suboxone for opioid

addiction treatment, saying it is a safer alternative to methadone and less

prone to overdose. Six-and-a-half months later the province is deep in an opioid

and fentanyl drug crisis, people are overdosing and some dying. Suboxone is

still not readily available.

I ask

the minister: Why has he not been able to make this happen and roll out Suboxone

as he had promised?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

I'd like to take the opportunity to also mention that whilst unfortunately there

have been some fatalities from fentanyl, there have also been 19 lives saved due

to the measures we took with the naloxone kits. The issue around Suboxone is

regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of this province, and we

have been engaged actively in attempting to reduce some of these regulatory

barriers. We continue to work on those.

Suboxone

is certainly a much safer alternative and I think ultimately will turn into the

first line of treatment. But there are some regulatory barriers that the

profession has to help me with at the moment and I'm working with them on that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, he has

six-and-a-half months and still no sign of a solution.

Mr.

Speaker, because of the fentanyl crisis, more people are desperately seeking

treatment for opioid addiction, yet still have to wait at least three weeks for

an initial screening appointment with the Opioid Treatment Centre. Then they

have to have a series of tests that can take up to 10 days or more for results.

Addictions do not do well on wait-lists.

I ask

the minister: What is he doing to put resources in place to speed up this

process as other provinces have done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite, having sat on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions,

would be quite familiar with a lot of the discussions that we have had around

trying to deal with this emerging problem. There is, in the very near future, a

full implementation plan for the All-Party Committee which will go a long way to

answer a lot of her questions.

addition to that, there is $5 million in this year's budget to begin immediately

implementing those. In addition, there is $2.7 million of federal money which we

can put into mental health and addictions at that point. She knows the answers

to some of her questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with

subsections 273(3) and 299(3) of the

Elections Act, 1991 , I

hereby table the supplementary

schedule of contributions from the annual report

on election finances January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 by the Office of the

Chief Electoral Officer.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with provisional Standing Order 11(1), I give notice under the same order that

the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 29, 2017.

Further,

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the same Standing Order 11(1), I give notice

that the House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

we insist that the well-being and safety of our families take priority over any

economic consideration; and

WHEREAS

we reject in advance any Nalcor-led plan to send its experts to Labrador to

inform; and

WHEREAS

we are calling for a process where independent experts are provided with

everything they need to ascertain the safety of the North Spur, i.e., the proper

mandate, documents, financing and time; and

WHEREAS

we demand this process have a public component where we the people can have

access and can ask questions; and

WHEREAS

the Premier promised to open the books on Muskrat Falls and so far that has not

happened;

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

of Assembly to urge government to consider the establishment of an independent

expert review of the North Spur.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I stand with this petition that is being sent in so that

this issue can be raised here in the House of Assembly. I'm very happy to do

that on behalf of the people who signed the petition in particular, and also the

people in Labrador in general who continue to get signatures for this petition

because of their great concern.

I am not

in any way saying that what's happening in Mud Lake right now is because of

Muskrat Falls, but I think what's happening in Mud Lake right now is something

that we really need to look at and look at what would happen if we have a major

fault of the dam in Muskrat Falls.

We all

know one place that will definitely get impacted would be Mud Lake. We also see

with what's happening today that even parts of Happy Valley-Goose Bay are being

affected by the flooding because of what's happening in the climate right now,

what's happening in weather in Labrador.

Once

again, I'm not blaming it on Muskrat Falls. That's not what I'm saying, but it

is a warning of what can happen if anything, a major fault would happen because

of the North Spur. I don't know, to me it's really timely, unfortunate I feel

awful for the people in Mud Lake and anybody else, especially there in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, who may be affected by this. It's horrible, but how much more

we should say we can't, we have to make sure everything is done to ensure that

this kind of flooding couldn't happen because of a fault at Muskrat Falls.

The

experts around the world who are questioning the stability of the North Spur

need to be taken into consideration, and I don't think this government has done

that. I don't think Nalcor has done it. I think what the people in Labrador are

calling for and what those who signed the petition are calling for needs to be

paid attention to.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

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

and

WHEREAS

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

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

reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers but we

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

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

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

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't know how many times I've stood in this House and read this

petition, and then spoke to the petition in terms of how short sighted this tax

on books really is, and how detrimental it is in a number of ways. I can't

imagine there is any other argument that I haven't covered as to why this tax is

regressive, is detrimental, does not strengthen or empower our citizens, our

communities, our retailers. It just simply makes no sense. It's an ill-thought

out regressive tax that is harmful; harmful to the literacy rates of the

province.

Again,

our province has the lowest literacy rate. It's mystifying to people all over

the province, and I'm sure it's mystifying to people on the other side of the

House. I know there are government Members who feel this really makes no sense

whatsoever to put this additional tax on books. Again, reminding everybody that

this tax is not implemented anywhere else in Canada, only in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Once again, here we are with the lowest literacy rates, the highest

illiteracy rates.

believe this is a tax that is a result of a lack of understanding of really what

taxes should do. It's a tax that flies in the face of reason. It's not based on

any kind of evidence to show there is benefit to the people of the province.

Taxes really should benefit people. There is no perceivable benefit to this type

of tax.

We've

seen that government has had to rescind part of their gas tax. We've seen

government has had to roll back some of its levy tax, the Liberal levy tax. So

they should do the right thing and abolish this tax as well, reinstate the

point-of-sale rebate on books in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

certainly a pleasure today to rise and present a petition on behalf of

constituents of the Ferryland District.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Goulds Bypass is a major route that most residents of the Southern Shore use

to commute to St. John's; and

WHEREAS

the condition of the Goulds Bypass is in a very deplorable state; and

WHEREAS

the condition of this piece of highway is putting commuters safety at risk;

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

of Assembly to urge government to take necessary actions to do the necessary

repairs to the Goulds Bypass.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

For

those familiar with the Southern Avalon, the Goulds Bypass or actually Robert

E. Howlett, it's in memorial of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That piece of

highway was built a number of years ago for the purpose of improving the traffic

link from the Southern Shore to the St. John's region.

With the

expansion of the boundary of St. John's extended up to Middle Pond, to the

border of Bay Bulls, that's significant piece of highway in regard to traffic

for commerce, for people travelling for work, for a number of activities back

and forth and for the companies and businesses that support along the Southern

Shore and the Southern Avalon. Whether it's the fabrication, whether it's the

fishing industry, small business, a wide array of activities there that this is

needed for.

Unfortunately, two years ago, in 2015, we did some upgrades in regard to six

kilometres of paving there, levelling, which held up well, but there are other

sections that certainly need to be done and we were hopeful that they would be

in the long-term plan in regard to what TW has put out.

We've

never gotten the list of all roads that were assessed, so I don't know where

that road has been in regard to being assessed. We'd certainly like to find out

and where the work is, to do the repairs to it. Because for economic, for

residential and for all those activities, it is needed. I think the criteria for

that, that the minister said when he assessed roads in Newfoundland and Labrador

whether they would fit the bill for the long-term maintenance of highways, that

it would fit in.

The

other unfortunate part of this administration, we had approved an extension to

the Robert E. Howlett to bring it 9.6 kilometres into the Bay Bulls region.

Unfortunately again in their wisdom, on the other side, they saw a lack of

vision and they cancelled this. When you look at the growth and the other things

we're seeing in the region and we know of the poor decision to cancel the new

middle school as well.

Nevertheless, the people of the region, there's growth there, a lot of activity.

This government talks about economic development and you have to put the

resources in place, whether it's highway or schools, to make sure we need the

needs of the region. We certainly implore government to revisit this and do what

needs to be done in regard to this highway, the Robert E. Howlett.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

petition to the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

school-age children are walking to school in areas where there are no sidewalks,

no traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and

WHEREAS

they have put the safety of these children at risk;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure safety of all children by removing the

1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This is

not the first time that I've presented this petition; it's a petition that I've

presented now since we've been in Opposition. It's a concern I've had since I've

been here in government.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a lot of areas in the province that have sidewalks and have

safe walking areas to and from school. Some areas don't have the same traffic

congestion that I do have in my area. On Torbay Road where I have Torbay

Elementary School and now the new Torbay middle school there are 17,000 cars a

day travelling along those roads. It is very dangerous for the children to be

walking along those roads.

I know

it's a policy that's in there and there's a cost related to it and the distance

between school and getting home and stuff like that. And 1.6 kilometres may not

seem a long distance, but it is quite the distance for families to be concerned

about their children walking back and forth, especially in the winter months.

I know

that in some areas they do clear if you're in the St. John's area, the

sidewalks get cleared. Schools are a priority. But in the area like Torbay where

they don't have sidewalks and you have children walking back and forth to

school, it's very dangerous because there's a lot of ice and the snow doesn't

get plowed back as far as what it would if the sidewalks were cleaned.

I'd

really like and I know the minister had this concern himself when he was on

this side of the House because he presented a similar petition all the time. I'm

hoping that the minister will find the money and the resolve to be able to fix

this problem because it's a serious concern.

Torbay where there's a new school just opened I spoke to a parent just

recently and the concern was that the kids were used to going back and forth on

the bus but where the new school was put to, they had to walk. He said grade

fives and grade sixes, they are a bit rambunctious as they are going to school

and pushing and shoving, like we did when we were at their age. He was concerned

about the safety of them going back and forth.

I ask

the minister to seriously consider this, where safety is a major issue, to take

this policy out of place.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to stand again and present a petition.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

there's been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K to

12 school system; and

WHEREAS

the lack is having a significant impact on both the students and teachers; and

WHEREAS

left unchecked matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious

issues;

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

of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs

in our province's K to 12 school system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we've identified, in our discussions around education for the last

number of years, that there are obviously some serious challenges there. Society

has some different challenges now than faced previous generations and, as a

result, kids are facing stressors. There are issues around mental health that

are now coming to the forefront. There are issues within the school system.

As we

change the dynamic of our schools geographically, they are larger. Class sizes

are larger. Integration is part of it. There are a multitude of students who

have some particular challenges, which indeed adds to the stresses within the

classroom system, adds to the inability, in some cases, of being able to

supervise in a proper manner and address some of the particular issues; but if

you have also societal issues around mental health, they obviously are going to

carry over to the younger generation.

What

we're hearing from experts, what we've heard from the All-Party Committee on

Mental Health in their report, was if we're proactive versus just being reactive

and I know we have to be reactive because certain situations already exist and

we have to be able to address those and we have to try to mitigate any impact

they have on students, our school system, the people who provide our education,

the families who take care of their loved ones and their children day in and day

out.

We have

to take a two-fold approach here. One has to be: We have to work with our

educators, provide them the resources, the education, the supports necessary so

they can help identify particular issues around mental health in the school

system, do some primary interventions, do some assessments and be able to guide

where the proper perceived intervention may be available. That has to come

through a partnership. To develop that partnership, you have to have all

stakeholders.

So we

need to take the lead here, government needed to take the lead and particularly

the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and the Department

of Health need to obviously look at how you integrate and develop programs that

meet the needs in our school. There is no doubt there is a collaborative

approach here by everybody that has the ability to put programs and services in

place.

As we

noted in the past, K to 12 are getting larger. There are more integrated

programs and services that are needed. We need to have a strategy around mental

health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Particularly as it relates to

students because the plan here and the investment here would be beneficial

because if we can alleviate some of the issues facing young people in the

younger years, that will eliminate it in the later years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would call

Order 7, second reading of Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 10,

An Act

To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 10 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act.

(Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

legislation change will ensure milk quality and a penalty program is in place,

but before I go into details on that program I would like to provide some

background on the Natural Products

Marketing Act .

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Natural

Products Marketing Act allows the minister to establish plans for the

promotion, control, regulation or prohibition of the production of marketing of

a natural product. These plans provide for an establishment of a commodity board

and outline their powers, functions and duties for the application and the

enforcement of that plan.

In the

case of dairy, the commodity board is the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the scheme is the Milk Scheme of 1998.

Newfoundland and Labrador's supervisory board is the Farm Industrial Review

Board which was established under the

Natural Products Marketing Act to control and direct the operation of

commodity boards. Given that the commodity boards are empowered to regulate

their own industry, there is a need for an oversight body. The Farm Industrial

Review Board provides a link between the commodity board and the government to

ensure commodity boards operate with the best interest of the public.

Currently, the act does not address issues governing milk quality or provide

commodity boards with the powers to enforce quality standards and penalties. As

a result, an amendment is required to the

Natural Products Marketing Act so that it will provide the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador with the tools to implement the milk quality and

penalty program.

summarize on why we need this amendment, the

Natural Products Marketing Act only provides for the establishment

of commodity boards which doesn't include dairy. Currently, milk quality

standards are covered under food premises regulations but if this amendment is

accepted, the act will allow for it and will make the necessary changes to the

regulations.

This is

an important amendment, as it ensures we are becoming in line with the rest of

Canada and will continue to produce some of the best milk products in the world.

Canadian milk standards are seen as some of the most stringent in the world.

Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador are committed to maintaining their

place as an international leader for milk quality.

The

Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador have been working with their

counterparts in other provinces to move towards harmonizing their milk quality

standards, which is what we are doing today. This amendment will allow the

implementation of penalties for non-compliance through the new milk quality and

penalty program.

This is

a producer driven initiative to ensure processors located in and outside the

province have the same high level of quality standards that are applied to all

other Canadian dairies. Today's amendment will ensure that milk produced in this

province will have the same standards and quality for production purposes.

Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, I am mandated to promote economic

growth in the agriculture industry. Our government recognizes the unique nature

of this industry, and through Budget 2017 ,

we are following through with our commitment to expand this sector.

Dairy

farms are the largest of all of our agriculture commodities produced in

Newfoundland and Labrador, accounting for 36 per cent of our farm gate receipts.

Farms in Newfoundland and Labrador produced 48 million litres of milk in 2016

worth almost $48 million at the farm gate.

This

industry is comprised of 28 separate enterprises. Approximately 60 per cent of

these farms are located on the East Coast. The largest amount of production

occurs on the West Coast of our province, and that's where we have farms on the

West Coast that are among the largest in the country. Over 20 per cent of the

milk produced in our province today is shipped to processors outside the

province for secondary processing. We are currently looking at opportunities to

attract proposals for secondary processing in our province, as this will further

expand our efforts to become more food self-sufficient.

The

implementation of this amendment will likely result in an expansion of our dairy

sector; agriculture development has reached a pivotal point in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Our government recognizes the importance of providing as much locally

produced food as possible to our residents. Current production is meeting only

10 per cent of our food requirements. We are making a number of strides to

increase our food self-sufficiency. Increasing food self-sufficiency is one of

more than 50 initiatives outlined in The

Way Forward: A Vision for Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador .

Newfoundland and Labrador produces enough of the supply managed commodities such

as milk, chickens and eggs for our own requirements; however, we import about 90

per cent of the other food requirements via marine transportation. Opportunities

exist to increase production levels of almost all agricultural products,

including dairy for secondary processing.

February, we announced that farmers and agricultural producers will have almost

double the amount of land available to them through Crown Lands reservation

prioritized for the agriculture production. We identified 62 areas of interest,

making up approximately 64,000 hectares to increase agriculture development.

These areas contain lands considered to be sufficient for agricultural

within these agricultural development areas is an important step for expanding

our industry.

Local

farmers and businesses recognize the need to obtain a greater share of the local

market or to expand into new markets, and it's up to us as a government to help

them achieve those goals.

conclusion, this is a good amendment to move forward on. It will ensure our milk

remains consistent with national standards and is on the same high quality, as

these amendments ensure quality assurance related to processing of dairy

products. Raw milk of a lower quality has a negative impact on the entire

sector.

Our

dairy farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of the statistics and are

aware the implementation date of this program will be August 1. In fact, the

decision was approved at the semi-annual meeting of the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador membership and therefore applies to all dairy farmers.

This is

an amendment our dairy farmers want and are eagerly waiting to implement. I ask

Members to also support this amendment, and I do look forward to today's debate.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, first of all I want to thank the minister's staff who provided us a

briefing the other day. They did a great job, very thorough, and I want to

acknowledge them and thank them very much. It was appreciated.

The

minister just stated in Bill 10, under the

Natural Products Marketing Act , the changes that were already read. It's

important changes. It's a quality assurance piece, I guess, is more the thing.

Our milk products right now are at a great standard, but this is just to ensure

they stay at those standards. It's tightening up quality assurance, which is a

good thing.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Industry Review Board is an administrative

tribunal a statutory appeal body with additional responsibilities for the

general supervision of the marketing boards operating in the agriculture

sectors.

The

board's responsibility under the Natural

Products Marketing Act is to serve as a supervisory board with the power and

authority under the Act to control and direct the operations of the provincial

commodity boards including Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Egg

Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Under

the Natural Products Marketing Act the

Farm Industry Review Board is responsible for general supervision of the

operations of commodity board created under that Act; hearing appeals filed by

any person who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with orders, decisions or

determination of the commodity boards; and acting as a signatory to federal

provincial agreements for supply-managed commodities.

Currently, through the Natural Products

Marketing Act , the minister can establish schemes plans for promotion,

control, regulation or prohibition of the production and marketing of a natural

product. These schemes provide for the establishment of the commodity boards and

outline their powers, functions and duties for the application and enforcement

of the scheme.

There

are currently three commodity boards in Newfoundland and Labrador: the Dairy

Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Egg Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I already

stated.

Mr.

Speaker, these amendments to the Natural

Products Marketing Act will allow for the implementation of milk quality and

penalty program. The scheme that governs the milk board is the

Milk Scheme, 1998 . The regulations

under the Milk Scheme apply to all producers and processors engaged in the

production of milk and marketing of milk. The regulations govern such things as

licensing, production quotas, production levies, production pricing and

inspections. The Farm Industry Review Board is also established under the

Natural Products Marketing Act.

The

board is a regulatory, adjudicated body responsible for the general supervision

of provincial agriculture commodity boards, and the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador have requested approval to allow them to implement a

raw milk quality and penalty program.

As you

can see, this is coming from the industry, which anything that is industry

driven to approve quality assurances in something like this and helps the

industry is always a good thing. It's nice to see it coming from the industry as

opposed to the other way around. A lot of times government initiates stuff; this

is the industry asking the government to help them to make their products safer

and to help them grow their industry. So that's always good to see, Mr. Speaker.

This

program will include new stricter milk quality standards, increased testing,

frequencies and associated penalties for non-compliance. The program has been

approved by the board and would be effective following the legislative

amendment. The amendment will allow the minister to confer upon the commodity

board the power to impose penalties, prescribe quality standards and give the

board the power to hear and determine appeals in relation to suspension and the

revocation of licences.

Mr.

Speaker, I guess the next comments will be basically what we've kind of arrived

at, why the board wants this amendment Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador, I should say, want this amendment.

Milk has

always been tested for quality according to the National Dairy Code standards

and is subject to inspection of quality control by Service NL under the

Food Premises Act and the

Food Premises Regulations . The Dairy

Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador recently entered into an agreement with

other provinces which will require the milk and quality testing to follow the

same standards across Canada. This is why I referenced the quality assurance

piece; it is actually improving upon what we already have, and I'll get to that

in a minute.

The new

program will allow the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador to prescribe

quality standards and issue penalties as a condition of the producer's licence.

All other provinces are set up this way. So again, it is keeping in line with

the remainder of all the provinces across the country.

It's a

nationally based program that will ensure all provinces follow a coherent set of

standards and testing. All provinces have committed to implementing this by

August of 2017, so in the very near future.

The

purpose of the milk quality and penalty program is to maintain and strengthen

current Canadian milk quality standards and initiate the enforcement of strict

monetary penalties associated with these standards across provinces. It's not

anticipated that this program will result in widespread application of

penalties; rather, it will provide an incentive for them to produce and maintain

quality milk. It will also strengthen our reputation with processors who expect

quality milk.

The

industry has provided strong support for the province and the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador to proceed with this change. Because there is no

secondary processing in the province, our milk quota for secondary processing is

currently pooled with milk from the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,

PEI and Nova Scotia, which is referred to as the P5 provinces, Mr. Speaker.

In order

to ensure the consistent quality amongst farmers is ultimately pooled milk,

implementation of a collective milk quality program is required. This will

provide processors, as well as other provinces, with assurances that all milk is

produced in accordance with the same high standards.

The

Milk Scheme, 1998 and the

Milk Regulations, 1998 will be amended

to provide the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador with the authority to

implement the program and include program specifics: milk quality standard,

penalty levels and shut-off levels respectively.

Mr.

Speaker, in

summary, some remarks I want to make. Through the supply of

management, each province receives a quota for milk, eggs and chicken. The

provincial boards then allocate the quotas to existing and new farmers. These

quotas ensure that each province has enough milk products for their residents. I

learned a lot of this the other day through our briefing. It was pretty

educational. I thought it was quite interesting, actually.

Within

Newfoundland and Labrador, all the fluid milk, drinking milk that is sold here

is produced here, with the exception of lactose-free and UHT milk. Industrial

milk, which is produced in this province, is shipped to other provinces to make

ice cream, cheese, yogurt and other secondary products. This is done as the

facilities to process such volume of secondary products are not in our province.

The amount of industrial milk shipped out is relative to the amount of secondary

products shipped in.

The

Newfoundland dairy farmers have now signed an agreement with the P5, as I said:

Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec, which will see our

secondary processing take place in those provinces. In order to ensure this can

occur, the province needs to have the same quality standard as those provinces.

This agreement will guarantee that the farmers will have buyers for their

industrial milk and guarantees them a price for it. Newfoundland farmers will

actually get a higher price than PEI farmers for industrial milk.

The

quality of milk will need to be better than 400,000 somatic cell counts.

Currently, the testing which occurs is done by Service NL, as per the act. Dairy

cows must have a standard of better than a human health standard of 500 somatic

cell counts. Obviously, it's 100,000 less under this new proposal here which,

again, I'll refer to as a quality assurance piece.

During

our briefing, we were also told that, I think, there's one dairy farm that they

can recall ever reached the 500,000 level. So the odds of anyone ever reaching

that was the one time that it happened. Now we're lowering it to 400,000, and

once again, the dairy farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador are the ones

initiating and driving for this change. That's good to see, Mr. Speaker.

Through

the new program, the standard which will be enforced by the dairy farmers will

be better than the human health standard, which is a good thing. The enforcement

of this new standard is not expected to be an issue as the vast majority of

farms now well exceed the 400,000 somatic cell count standard.

The

Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador have asked for the amendment, and are

all in the support of the new regulatory framework which this legislation will

allow.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, and once again, his staff for providing

us with a briefing. This is a piece of legislation that we will be supporting.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to take a few minutes to say a few words about this bill, and more

specifically, about the dairy industry in the province and to pay tribute to

some of the people in the dairy industry in this province.

It's

good to see this legislation come forward and it's good to see that it seems to

be accepted on all side of the House. That's very encouraging that people

recognize the importance of the dairy industry in this province and the

importance of this piece of legislation to the dairy industry.

I just

want to say, the dairy industry in this province has an interesting history.

There are some people who, at the beginning of the dairy industry, thought that

a dairy industry couldn't exist in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador

because we couldn't grow the grains here that we needed to support a dairy

industry. We had to import some of our grains.

A number

of families specifically, I want to mention a few of them that are from my

area: the Cormiers of the Codroy Valley; the Chaffeys from St. David's,

Maidstone; the Wells of Robinsons and the Simmons from Little Rapids. Those are

some of the families that sort of played a big

part in the development of this

dairy industry in this province, when many people were saying that we shouldn't

have a dairy industry, that we couldn't have a dairy industry. They ignored all

of that. They went about their work day to day and created a dairy industry that

is such a big part of our farming economy in this province.

It's

interesting, Mr. Speaker, that these families continue to be innovative.

Innovative in the way they run their farms. Innovative in the way they use

technology on their farms. Innovative in the crops they grow. Only 20 or 30

years ago, people would tell you we can't grow corn in Newfoundland. Well, on

the West Coast of this province now there is over 1,000 acres of corn being

grown each year. That has a big impact on the dairy industry and the ability of

our dairy industry to survive.

Also, I

think we should mention the role of the department in terms of experimenting

with new crops and, in partnership with farmers, developing new crops such as

winter wheat and canola, the importance that these locally grown varieties and

the success of growing and processing these here in this province, have on the

viability of our dairy industry. The role of the department in doing that is

very important. I just want to recognize the role that the department has played

in encouraging that type of experimentation, partnering with farmers to expand

the types of crops that we can grow in this province.

Also, it

is interesting to know that we often think of farming and dairy farming as a low

technology sort of activity, but if you look at the modern dairy farms today

you'll find computers are a big part of the operation there. Several of the

farms are recognized as leaders in the technology that they're using in their

farms. They're dealing with environmental issues in innovative ways. They're

pushing things forward in the way they manage their herds, to manage their

reproduction.

If you

look at farms I visited, a number of the farms in my own district, some of them

have one of the farmers has a cellphone and he sort of manages the farm sort

of from his cellphone. He has sort of a robotic system that milks cows and if

there's a problem on the farm with the system, it notifies him through his

cellphone and he can sort of go and deal with the problem.

It's

very interesting that agriculture is becoming a high-tech industry and the

quality of the milk that we produce in this province is second to none in the

world. Milk is a very regulated product around the world. It's something that's

consumed and requires good regulation to maintain the quality. So I'm pleased to

see that farmers are accepting that and looking at ways they can continue to

improve their quality.

produce fluid milk, milk that we consume in stores, but also we've been making

strides in terms of industrial milk quota in this province. I think some of

these farmers are innovative enough that I think you're going to see some

secondary processing of that industrial quota in short time. So it's very

interesting. It's very positive.

I just

wanted to take those few minutes to pay tribute to the dairy farmers who are

really doing a positive job here in this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

really pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to this bill, the bill to amend

the Natural Products Marketing Act

because I just believe there's so much that can happen in agriculture in our

province, so much that is happening and so much that we should be proud of, that

I'm delighted to be able to stand and speak to a bill that is dealing with that.

In this

case, of course, we're dealing with the whole issue of milk. I thank the

minister for his opening remarks, spelling out what the bill is about. I thank

his department, also his officials for meeting with MHAs and researchers to

explain the bill as well so that we can understand what it is we are voting for.

One of

the things that is very interesting I think there are a lot of things I've

learned because of this bill, and that's exciting. One is the wonderful quality

of our milk. Now, one of the things about this bill is it is dealing with making

sure we have regulations that prescribe in writing what is demanded in the

quality, if we are to continue sending milk for industrial purposes outside of

the province, to be used by industry outside of the province.

It turns

out that, in actual fact, while we'll prescribe it and put it in writing, we

have tremendous high quality. Milk is monitored and measured by what is called

the somatic cell counts. This testing is done not by the Department of Fisheries

and Land Resources but by the Department of Service NL under the authority of

the Food Premises Act and Food

Premises regulation.

In the

national standards, a cell count of 400,000 or less is required to meet the

standards of the provinces that we pool our milk with. It turns out the

regulations setting down that it's 400,000 or less is really way beyond what we

produce here in this province. In actual fact, our provincial milk quality is

almost always below 100,000. So the regulations are in place, they're

precautionary, but if we keep up this standard we have no worries. I think it's

marvellous that we have such a high standard.

The

breadth of the distance of where our milk goes, our milk is pooled with five

provinces that are called the P5 group: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI and

Nova Scotia. That's where our milk goes and is used industrially; in other

words, in secondary processing.

One of

the sad things is that while we have fantastic milk producers and fantastic

farms, we no longer have any large-scale secondary processing. There are some

small artisan enterprises. For example, Five Brothers Cheese is one of the

things that come to mind, but we don't have any more secondary processing in the

province.

We used

to process in a large scale cheese, yogurt and ice cream. Of course, recently

with the closure or the loss of the Scotsburn factory, we ended any secondary

processing in the province. That is sad for a couple of reasons. One is part of

the food security that the minister was talking about, we're certainly

self-sufficient in milk for consumption, that's not the problem but we certainly

are not producing anything as a secondary product. That is disturbing. Again,

not just because of the whole issue of food security but also because of jobs.

Because when we lost the Scotsburn factory we also lost almost 200 jobs. This is

very disturbing.

It would

be very interesting to see could we, once again, in some of these areas become

competitive if we got more secondary processing going on. Maybe we can't. If we

can't, I understand part of that would be, I would imagine, economy of scale.

We're a very small population spread over a very large area, so that does

dictate some things. But at the same time, I wonder are we encouraging enough of

people, entrepreneurs, in the industry with milk who might get into secondary

processing of cheese, of yogurt, stuff that we did have secondary processing in.

In the

meantime, making sure that our producers here in Newfoundland and Labrador can

get the milk off the Island is extremely important. That's what the amendments

are about. The provincial dairy farmers' milk quota for secondary processing, as

I said, is currently pooled with milk products from the five provinces that I

mentioned. It's really important that our dairy farmers and we've had a

description of how successful they are, but it's really important that our dairy

farmers can continue to pool their product in this P5 group. The amendments to

the act and the regulations that will be brought in because of those amendments

are there to make sure that we will continue to meet the standards of the P5

provinces.

It's

absolutely important that all producers produce good quality, because one

producer pooling milk, one producer who does not have good quality can spoil it

for everybody else. So this is why it's so important that we now are putting in

place, in writing, prescriptions with regard to our production of milk so that

it can move off the Island. It can, because of being sent to industrial

customers, maintain a really strong industry here in the province of milk

production.

That

milk, the milk for consumers, we are sufficient in that, just as we are in eggs,

for example. So we have security when it comes to milk. We have security when it

comes to eggs.

With

these amendments, we are allowing or we are ensuring actually, that our milk

production will continue, will continue in a way that is good, both for the

producers of milk as well as for the economy of the province.

But I

do, once again, want to say I really would like to see whether or not government

is looking at can we support getting some secondary processing back here and tie

that with the need for jobs.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

once again an honour to stand here in the House of Assembly to speak to an issue

that's very important to the District of Bonavista. The agriculture industry is

a growing industry in my district. We actually have five families in the dairy

industry in my district, so I just wanted to acknowledge them, like my friend

and colleague did for Port au Port.

AN HON. MEMBER:

St. George's Humber.

MR. KING:

St. George's Humber, sorry.

I got the name wrong the other day.

Eric

Greening, Frazer Greening, Jeff Peddle and Jeff and Olive Greening and those

last two farms, Sunrise and Peddle's, they were recipients of awards last year

through the Newfoundland and Labrador dairy association. So it's great to see

that they're producing a very all farmers are producing high quality, but it's

nice to see some recognition, locally.

Finally,

I want to talk a little bit about William and Lucas Strong. Lucas is a very

young man, 20 years old and he's has Hillside Holsteins in Harcourt. I'm

honoured to take the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources there on Thursday

and we're going to, hopefully, do a tour sometime soon.

This act

itself is an amendment to the Natural

Products Marketing Act . This is a big step forward. I sat into the technical

brief on Monday and it was quite interesting. I was there for about an hour and

I took lots of notes, but this is a step forward for the Dairy Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It allows the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador to self-govern themselves and have an ability to impose fines on

themselves, so that meets standards that are similar to other jurisdictions, Mr.

Speaker.

What

that does is it allows them to get into an agreement with other Eastern

provinces by August 1, 2017. Currently, from Quebec East to Nova Scotia, they

are all part of a group and hopefully this summer, with this legislation, that

will aid them getting into that group.

What the

group does, Mr. Speaker, is it allows us to export our raw milk, industrial

milk, out of the province. As the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi

stated, we would love to see more secondary processing here; however, given the

circumstances we're in, this is going to allow our diary producers to get a

better price in other parts of the country, and we can work hard towards

bringing secondary processing back here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I just

wanted to speak a couple of minutes on that.

One of

the things I did last fall when the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources

visited my district was visit a dairy farm: Sunrise Dairy on the road from

Musgravetown to Bunyan's Cove. Jeff and Olive have quite the operation there.

You go in and the first thing you notice is how clean everything is, how

organized everything is and how modern.

You look

at that facility, you walk in, you see where all the cows are and then you look

at how everything is automated. Then you look at another part, you go over and

see where the little calves are and rearing them up. They do everything so

precisely, so properly that they value, not just the milk that goes out, but the

animals there as well, because they realize that the animals there are their

livelihood. So they're treated very well. The young are treated very well

because that's the future of their business, of their farm.

It was

very, very interesting. It was the first time I had been to a dairy farm. I met

with dairy farmers previously when the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry

and Innovation was the minister. The five farmers that were there that day

certainly gave us some good input on how they would like to see our government

handle this industry. I think this legislation goes a long way in supporting

what they want to do.

The

great thing about this legislation I think all parties will support it is

the fact the industry supports this amendment. That's very important to note. We

consulted with industry. We listened to them. This will allow them, as I

mentioned, to form with the other eastern provinces when it comes to dairy

production; allows them to ship out their industrial milk to get a better price.

I will

fully be supporting this, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to stand and have a few comments on Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Natural

Products Marketing Act.

In my

own district, in regard to milk production, I have a number of dairy farms,

particularly in Bay Bulls and the Goulds region, and a long history of a

connection to agriculture and the dairy industry in those regions. It is

certainly important to our economy and important to the well-being of those

regions.

I was

just looking through the piece of legislation, I'll make some comments here and

maybe the minister, when he gets up in Committee or to close debate, can maybe

just respond to them. Just a couple of general thoughts I had reading through.

I know

we're talking about supply management here in regard to the particular piece of

legislation, I'm not sure and maybe you could comment if there's any change

or any effect in regard to supply management with this piece of legislation on a

provincial level. Then when you look at the recent agreement on internal trade

that was amended and now we've transferred over to, I think, the Canadian Free

Trade Agreement, which is in the process of being completed and signed off.

Are

there provisions in this that are needed or provisions here that are being

amended or are being enacted in legislation that are required, as requirements

to meet specific clauses of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement? If the minister

could give some comment on that. If there are, what they would be and what

connection there would be to this bill and the proposed Canadian Free Trade

Agreement.

Obviously, supply management, when entered into that, and as well the free flow

of products between provinces, between regions. I guess that's what the

amendment to the internal agreement on trade and the new agreement is all about,

to break down some of those boundaries, but yet recognizing, under supply

management, there are other protections that are there.

The

other one that I just wanted to ask about, I note going through, is obviously

it's about developing a Canadian standard in terms of quality. I think everybody

understands that. That's certainly in the right direction.

The

other one was the secondary processing piece. I think my colleague from the

Third Party just mentioned when she was up; talked about secondary processing in

the province. Our milk quota for secondary processing is currently pooled with

milk from, I think it's called P5 provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI

and Nova Scotia.

So maybe

the minister could speak to what the current status is in regard to secondary

processing and, in the future, if secondary processing and someone had quota

here and they wanted to invest in secondary processing, are there any

limitations to doing that or to opting out of this group? Could they do that?

Are there any limitations in this bill to do so?

I guess

that goes to the independence of someone here who wanted to go down that road

and get involved in secondary processing. So maybe the minister, when he gets

up, could comment on the whole secondary processing piece: where we are today,

what the rules are, how this legislation will affect it, if it will, and if it

does affect it, what those changes will be?

Then if

he could just comment on the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, some of the changes

here, is it required for the Canadian Free Trade Agreement? If not, why not?

I guess

the last piece is in regard to the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, CETA,

that Canada has with the EU from dairy products and what we're talking about

here. Is there any relation to that and is this, in any way, meeting any of the

requirements from a provincial jurisdiction perspective related to CETA?

that's my commentary, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll do

my best to address the hon. Member's questions before I close debate.

This

change in the legislation we just reached an agreement with the P5, so the

agreement now is the P5 and NL. This legislative change is for that agreement,

not for the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. This was a part of our commitment to

the P5 for letting us be a part of that pool. It's now not going to be the P6,

it's going to be the P5 and Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope that answers one

of the questions.

The

question around secondary processing and it's linked to CETA. Under the CETA

about 17,000 tons of cheese. Currently, there is about a 20,000 ton TRQ. So what

has happened I know our dairy industry has applications made for parts of this

TRQ.

The TRQ,

under CETA, is destined or designated for existing industry. We would hope that

our industry receives a portion of that. That would increase, obviously, our

secondary processing because one of the things that we see as fundamental for

the expansion of our dairy industry is secondary processing. It's fundamental to

growing the industry.

We have

support from the P5, and even the Canadian Dairy Association is supporting the

fact that Newfoundland and Labrador needs to become a part of secondary

processing in dairy because, I guess, if you look at it from a Canadian

provinces point of view or perspective, our milk is going into Atlantic Canada,

for example, and they would much prefer that our milk were to stay here and we

would use it ourselves instead of putting it into their markets.

I'm not

sure if that answers all the questions the Member opposite had, but certainly in

Committee, if there are more or if there's something that I need to get

clarification for them, I certainly will.

Mr.

Speaker, I do want to close debate now on second reading. I thank the staff at

Fisheries and Land Resources for the work they've put into this. I'd like to

thank the Dairy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. They've done a

tremendous amount of work on this. Our Dairy Association has been very, very

active. They were just in Europe actually a few weeks ago looking for

perspective industry players to come to this province and establish secondary

processing.

I thank

all the Members who took

part in the debate this afternoon. It's important, and

when we look around the province and we look at areas as the Member for

Bonavista pointed out quite clearly, his district is a hub for dairy production

in this province. Along with the Member for Ferryland, who has a considerable

amount of dairy production in his district as well; the Member for St. George's

Humber as well, who has one of the largest dairies in Canada located in his

district. I had the pleasure last year to actually tour that dairy and see the

tremendous operation they're running there, state of the art, and our dairy

industry in this province is state of the art.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, there are exciting opportunities in the dairy industry in this

province. We're going to continue to work extremely hard with the Dairy

Association, with Dairy Farmers NL, Young Farmers NL, to make sure that this

industry gets to a point where it's what it can be because this industry has

exciting opportunities before it. This change we're making to this piece of

legislation today will only be another tool for our industry.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 10 now be read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill

An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act, read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by

leave. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The

minister, in second reading took up a question. So I'm just wondering if he

could clarify. He referenced CETA and (inaudible) ton TRQ. Is that related to,

and is in the CETA related to dairy products for Canada, and if Newfoundland

wanted to do secondary processing, would we have to apply to get a component of

that to export into the EU? Could you explain that, Minister, please?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's my

understanding that under that TRQ we would have to apply to get a piece of that

to go into Europe as tariff free. We can still do secondary processing and

export it into Europe or anywhere, but it would be subject to tariff if it

wasn't a piece of that TRQ.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Natural

Products Marketing Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 10

carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Madam

Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 10.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 10.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the

Deputy Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, the

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 10 passed without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Deputy Chair reports

that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed her to report Bill 10 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I

call Order 5, second reading of Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 7,

An Act

To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's been moved and

seconded that Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 be

now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service

Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

happy today to stand in this House and speak to Bill 7, which is

An Act to Amend

the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

As I

often want to do when I debate bills, I often talk about the purpose of them and

the size of them. So when you look at the actual bill and I would point out

that it's my understanding that Members of the Opposition have had the

opportunity to receive a briefing from the Department of Finance and their

staff.

This

bill has been on the Order Paper for some time now. I always want to make sure

and recognize the fact that (

a) everybody has had a chance to review the

legislation, which I think is important, and (

b) to thank the members of each

department who take the time to brief Members opposite, as well as the Members

of the caucus.

There's

a significant amount of time that goes into this and, as we all know, our

Department of Finance has certainly been busy, given the fact that our budget

just passed this week. We know how much time goes into that. So the fact that

they've been dealing with that, as well as dealing with these important pieces

of legislation, we want to thank them for all they've done and they do to make

sure that we're aware of the relevant legislation.

As you

can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill itself is not significant in terms of its actual

size. What I will do is I will discuss the explanatory notes and discuss the

actual provisions that are being changed here.

This act

is not

an act that is being repealed; it's

an act that's being amended. So we're

just amending the act from 1991 to reflect the quarterly payment amount required

to amortize the promissory note. It allows the name of the corporation to be

changed by a resolution of the board made by an affirmative vote of all the

directors and it amends the objects of the corporation.

Basically, this is something that was announced in the not to recent past.

Subsection 6.01(2) of the act is now repealed and the following substituted: The

promissory note that deals with this shall amortize $2,685,000,000 over 30 years

payable in quarterly instalments of $47,000,000 beginning March 31, 2015. So as

you can see, this is a backdated amount reflecting when this amount, this

promissory note is effective from.

Section

36.1 of the act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (5) the

following this is a new section (6) The name of the corporation may be

changed at any time by a resolution of the board made by the affirmative vote of

all the directors and notice of the change of name shall be published in the

Gazette and the change of name shall

have effect on the thirtieth day following the date of publication.

And

subsection (7) says: A change in the name of the corporation shall not affect

any rights or obligations of the corporation or render defective any legal

proceedings instituted by or against the corporation and any legal proceedings

that may have been continued or commenced by or against the corporation .

Basically, what it's saying is that if, for some reason that would be

obviously identified if there is a change in name which has to be agreed to by

all the directors, said name change would not discontinue legal actions for or

against. That's a pretty standard provision.

Subsection 36.3 of the act is repealed and the following substituted: The

objects of the corporation are (

a) to act as a trustee ; (

b) to act as an

administrator of the pension plan, and to exercise those other powers and

perform those other duties as may be expressly conferred upon the corporation

under the joint sponsorship agreement; (

c) to provide pension administration and

pension investment services ; and (

d) to carry out other activities or duties

as may be authorized .

Finally,

the commencement date, as we noted before, which is under

Section 4:

Section 1

is considered to have come into force on March 31, 2015.

Mr.

Speaker, as you can see, in terms of its actual size, there are only four

sections that are being either added or amended or repealed here. So I just

wanted to talk about a few of the different points that you see from this act.

Basically, this act doesn't contain new provisions, per se. It's basically

amendments that allow for greater clarity in the administration of pension plans

themselves. We're talking about quarterly schedules, name changes allowed by

resolutions and we're amending the objects of the corporation to enable the

corporation, which is administering this, to provide administrative and

investment services to other plans. I would assume that would be done to allow

for better administration of pension plans, because it doesn't matter which

pension plan you subscribe to or are party to, you want it to be administered to

the best benefit of the beneficiaries and the members of any plan.

We all

recognize the fact that our pension plans were not sustainable as they were.

We've had that discussion. Certainly, that's not something that's new. It's for

that reason that we, as a government, are working to bring sustainability to the

plans over the long term and to meet the needs of the public employees into the

future. We still talk about the unfunded pension liability that remains and work

continues to address this pension liability.

I know

that administrations in the past have had to deal with financial difficulties

that they faced. It seems like, as a province, we've dealt with that issue.

Certain administrations have faced, we'll say, greater challenges than other.

Other administrations, in fact, have had greater resources available to them

than perhaps others.

I don't

think it's any surprise that since the time we've come in here, the financial

challenges faced by our administration, I think, have been well documented and

well known. We've made that quite clear since we stepped in. As a government,

we've taken steps to reform the two largest public sector pension plans. These

are further steps in that direction.

These

amendments will allow for the continuation to reflect our obligations under the

Joint Sponsorship Agreement. All of us, any pensioner, want to see their plan

continue to be: (

a) we need sustainability and (

b) we'd like to see growth.

We're trying our best, as a government, to allow for these things to continue on

and to increase.

Our

Minister of Finance has done yeoman's work to make sure that this is happening.

She has taken on a significant challenge. I can't imagine I don't think I'm

overstepping my bounds by saying that I'm not aware of any other Finance

Minister that maybe has had greater challenges. The challenges that she faces

are just as great as those ministers previously have faced. She's done a great

job, but she's been able to do that job with the support of a great department

around her.

There

are a lot of good people who are working here, who have been doing that work for

some time. So I commend her for that work and I'm happy to support her in that

work.

Mr.

Speaker, on that note, I will take my seat. I look forward to the debate by my

colleagues opposite. I will get an opportunity at the end, obviously, to stand

and speak to this piece of legislation again.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 7,

An Act to Amend the Public Service

Pensions Plan.

The

changes proposed here will be retroactive changes to the Pensions Act to

reflect an amount to be required to be amortized in relation to the promissory

note, allow the name of the corporation to be changed and amend the objectives