PDF Version

March 5, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 29

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

In the

public gallery today, I would like to welcome representatives of the board of

directors of Emmaus House Food Bank: Chairperson Susan Halley, Vice-Chair

Georgie Chalker, Gary Sooley, Sharon Ready, Shirley Hearn and Norma Summers.

They are joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members'

statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte - Twillingate,

Exploits, Labrador West, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour Main.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize the oldest resident from my district, Mr. Victor

Baker, who celebrated his 103rd birthday on March 3.

Victor

grew up in Badger, where his father worked as a cook in the lumber camps. He

later moved to Botwood and spent most of his life there working with his

brothers in retail and wholesale distribution.

married the love of his life, Mary, and together they had one son, Maxwell.

Victor

now resides at Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte, and on Tuesday they celebrated

his birthday in fine style where he danced, sang and told a few stories.

As a

testament of Mr. Baker's sense of humour, when asked by Reverend Art Elliott if

he was getting any girlfriends since he moved into the manor, his response was:

My son, I got to beat them off with a broom.

To end

the party, as he done on his 100th birthday and so many times in his youth,

Victor enjoyed a horse and carriage ride.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to rise as we celebrate Mr. Victor Baker's 103rd

birthday and to wish him continued health.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this year the Kinsmen Club of Botwood celebrated their 46th anniversary

in conjunction with the 100 anniversary of Kin Canada.

In 1973,

Mr. Phillip (Den) Billard of Labrador came to live and work in Botwood. The

following year, they established a clubhouse and rented from the local paper

workers. The paper worker's union committed to its motto: Serving the

Community's Greatest Needs.

Mr.

Speaker, over the years, traditions and projects started and are still ongoing

today. Some of those are: Christmas dinner and dances for seniors in the town,

equipment for the local fire department, engagement in municipal projects, and

individual and group fundraisers.

Mr.

Speaker, at present, the Kinsmen Club of Botwood has donated over $3 million to

their municipality and region. The club is one of the top clubs in Canada and is

very active with 46 serving members and seven charter members.

Mr.

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

congratulating the Kinsmen Club of Botwood on their 46th anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to congratulate Cain's Quest Snowmobile race 2020 as they prepare for the

start of the race on March 7.

Cain's

Quest was started in 2006 by Todd Kent from Tourism who felt that a snowmobile

race had the potential to showcase Labrador and attract new visitors. A small

committee was formed and one staff person was hired. Since 2006, Cain's Quest

has grown to be an international sensation. It's been led by Glenn Emberley up

until 2014 and now by Rob Pilgrim.

It takes

months and months of planning and organization by a large group of volunteers

and staff to make such an event happen. Without them, the race would not be

where it is today. It makes me feel proud and a great sense of community from

every volunteer, from Lab West right on over to all corners of Labrador.

Every

layover and checkpoint throughout Labrador showcases our unique culture and our

Labrador spirit to the world. This year is the biggest race yet, with a record

of 50 teams including, for the first time ever, two female teams will be

competing for the finish line.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking everyone involved with making Cain's

Quest possible, and wish them all the best race possible on their journey

through the Big Land.

Thank

you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Emmaus House Food Bank is a collaborative food bank operated by

five parishes in the St. John's area. They are the Basilica of St. John the

Baptist, the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, St. Thomas', St. Patrick's, and

St. Michael and All Angels. It is run by a board of directors consisting of the

clergy and two elected representatives from each parish. A dedicated team of

volunteers handles day-to-day operations in Emmaus House.

Emmaus

House is one of several food banks served by the Community Food Sharing

Association and serves our vulnerable friends and neighbours with the support of

its parishes, sponsors and volunteers.

In 2019,

the Emmaus House Food Bank served 8,500 community members – 2,000 of those being

children in need.

During

Snowmageddon 2020, the volunteers at the Emmaus House faced the weather to open

their doors to support a community of people heavily burdened with food

insecurity.

I ask

all hon. Members to join in a round of applause for the parishes, sponsors and

volunteers that bring us Emmaus House Food Bank – a crucially important

community group for my district and the St. John's area.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

International Women's Day is celebrated this Sunday, March 8, 2020 and is a

global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements

of women.

This

year's theme is: I am Generation Equality: Realizing Women's Rights. This day

provides an opportunity to recognize strong women in our lives. For many that

would be our mothers. For me this Sunday, International Women's Day, is

especially meaningful as I will be remembering my mother, whose birthday falls

on this special day.

I will

proudly be attending an event in my district in North River on Sunday to

celebrate women's achievements, and will be joined by almost 250 individuals.

Each year a woman who has distinguished herself is recognized, and this year

it's Alice Frances Baird Innes. Funds raised that day will be donated to

O'Shaughnessy House in Carbonear, a shelter for people who suffer domestic

violence.

The

emerging global consensus, Mr. Speaker, is that despite some progress, real

change has been agonizingly slow for the majority of women and girls in our

world. Imagine a world where gender equality is the norm. Where men and women

getting paid equally for work of equal value and sharing the care when at home.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me and work together to make this a reality.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to acknowledge the receipt of the Muskrat Falls inquiry

report.

legislators, we are all keenly aware of the profound impact that the Muskrat

Falls Project has on ratepayers and the financial situation in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In 2017,

a public inquiry was called to p rovide a

greater understanding of whether all options were considered in the 2012

sanctioning; secondly, it was called to ask why there are significant

differences between the actual cost of the project and the estimated cost; also,

whether it was justified and reasonable for the project to be excluded from the

Public Utilities Board oversight.

Mr.

Speaker, we put a process in place to ensure all information was provided to the

inquiry. Justice Richard D. LeBlanc received approximately six million documents

and the report he delivered today is over 1,000 pages in length.

The Muskrat Falls inquiry was a comprehensive and detailed investigation that is

of great importance to the people of our province.

I would

like to thank Justice

LeBlanc and his team, and everyone else who participated in the inquiry,

for their commitment and their dedication.

Mr.

Speaker, while we can't undo the past, we can learn from it and make informed

decisions as we take actions to minimize the impact of this project on current

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and future generations of our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to extend our appreciation to

Justice LeBlanc for presiding over the inquiry, also appreciation to the

Commission co-counsel: Irene Muzychka, Barry Learmonth and Kate O'Brien, now

elevated to the Supreme Court of Justice for the province.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to reviewing the report when it's publicly released in

the coming days.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his

statement.

I am

sure the whole province is eager to read the findings of Justice LeBlanc. The

inquiry, an investigation into a disastrously publicly funded project, was paid

from the public purse. Justice LeBlanc wrote this for the public: I am deeply

concerned that the Minister of Natural Resources noted to the media that it may

be released with redactions. There cannot be redactions.

I am

sure Justice LeBlanc, a well-respected and competent jurist with decades of

experience, knew what he could and could not say in his report. The public needs

to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without redaction.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to acknowledge the start of midwifery services in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Welcome to our four midwives

– Renee Boland, Catha McMaster, Brianna Thompson and Maud Addai. Three of these

registered midwives started providing services in mid-December, while the fourth

midwife joined the team in January.

Budget 2019: Working towards

a brighter future

provided $370,000 for the establishment of these services in Gander.

Establishing a collaborative and supportive environment for midwifery has been

key to getting this program launched. We will use the lessons from Gander to

begin implementation across the province over the coming year.

This

team is a positive contribution to collaborative maternity care in the

community, and at James Paton Memorial Regional Health Centre.

I would

be remiss today if I did not acknowledge Gisela Becker, our provincial midwifery

consultant, who provided quality leadership and guidance in bringing this

implementation process to fruition.

I also

wish to acknowledge the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals, Pearl Herbert and

Kay Matthews, Central Health, midwives from across the country, educators and

others, who were instrumental in helping to develop regulations that will

facilitate the safe governance of midwifery in our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to join with the minister and acknowledge the beginning of

midwifery services in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Official Opposition also

wishes to acknowledge all four midwives: Renee Boland, Catha McMaster, Brianna

Thompson and Maud Addai. We hope that you and other midwives, which will join

you in the future, have a long and prosperous career serving the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also

thank the many professionals and organizations that had a role in developing the

necessary regulations to provide safe and accessible midwifery services to our

province, such as the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador and

the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals and Central

Health.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

I, too, thank the minister for an advance of his statement.

I'm

proud to say in the 1940s, a time before electricity and running water, my

great-grandmother was a midwife on Fogo Island. Her work in Joe Batt's Arm

inspired generations of women, including my own mother, to become a nurse.

Midwifery services are very close to my heart and I am proud to join the

minister in celebrating these great accomplishments.

Congratulations to our new midwives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the employees of the

Department of Transportation and Works who worked tirelessly during and after

the storm this January.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

We all saw the photos and the

impact the snow had on Eastern Newfoundland and the Avalon Peninsula and we all

know, through our own experiences and challenges, what we faced to clean up

after the storm.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend the employees of the department who went to great lengths to

ensure public safety.

Our plow

operators pushed through snow drifts that were 15 feet high on provincial

highways. Our mechanics and welders and clerk staff worked tirelessly to keep

our snow clearing equipment in working order; the crews that weathered the storm

on the ferries to keep them safe in 140-kilometre an hour winds; our security

staff who watched over government buildings and were unable to get home to their

families.

Mr.

Speaker, our employees regularly go above and beyond their normal

responsibilities. Their efforts during this storm and the days following were no

exception.

behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, thank you to our Department of

Transportation and Works employees for a job well done, and to everyone who

helped somebody else out following the storm.

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 want

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

Mr.

Speaker, we in the Official Opposition welcome this opportunity to applaud

Transportation and Works employees for their incredible work during and

following the January blizzard.

I have

often said we have some of the very best crews, not only in the province but

across the country, especially with the difficult, ever-changing weather

conditions that they have to deal with. They do tremendous work to keep our

roads safe for the travelling public.

Our

operators, maintenance crews and crews on our ferries are skilled, dedicated

professionals and while their work, perhaps, gets more attention during

exceptional weather events, I know that all residents of our province are

grateful for the amazing service that Transportation and Works employees provide

each and every day.

Mr.

Speaker – it might be a surprise based on yesterday – I would also like to add

that the minister personally reached out to me and other MHAs whose districts

and residents were impacted by the snow, and I want to acknowledge this and

thank him for doing that.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We all

recognize the sacrifices made by workers at Transportation and Works during what

became known as Snowmageddon. From my vantage point in Lab West, I was heartened

but not surprised of how workers went above and beyond the call of duty, how

communities came together and how many showed kindness and support to their

friends and neighbours. Without the kindness of most people, a lot more people

would have been a lot harder hit.

Let us

give thanks to everyone.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Yesterday, the minister said, referring to OilCo: we've also asked them to look

at not only the requirement for having a consultant but also the contracts

themselves. We expect to have some results very soon.

I ask

the minister: Will she table the results of this in the House as soon as she

receives it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we've been

dealing with this the last number of days and, of course, the last number of

weeks in public. I did indeed ask the oil company to review its contracts. The

contracts went over to the oil company the first of January, Mr. Speaker. I've

asked them to do – which I think is prudent and responsible – asked them to do a

review of the contracts, asked them to look at what requirements they have going

forward for consultants and look at their contracts.

Mr.

Speaker, if there is something that I do receive – it is in their purview to

look at their own contracts, but I have asked for that diligence, Mr. Speaker,

because it is a new entity. If there is anything that is received – again, I do

say, Mr. Speaker, there is a board of directors that is responsible for the

corporation but if there is anything received, I'm always happy to table

whatever I have in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you for the answer.

We know

that the contractor in question, the one who has the bloated contract for

$350,000 for part-time work and a $3,000-a-month housing allowance has attended

a trade mission in Guyana and that Guyana is now on track to surpass us in oil

production.

What

business has he generated for us, and how many jobs has he created for us here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite is indeed correct, Guyana has made a number of discoveries. I

believe it's eight billion barrels have been discovered, Mr. Speaker, which is a

tremendous amount.

signed a memorandum of understanding with Guyana in the fall of 2018, which was

prudent on our part, I thought. We want to have as many supply and service jobs

as possible around the world. I know our companies are doing incredible work

around the world in this industry. I know of, I think, 17 different memorandums

of understanding between companies, some trade relations between various

companies.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to work diligently and robustly to make more contacts

and more opportunity for our supply and service industry. Some of our largest

industry is now working in Guyana, and that's a very positive thing for jobs and

growth creation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

People of the province

continue to be outraged about the $350,000 part-time contract and $36,000 annual

housing allowance for an individual who rarely comes to the province and doesn't

pay taxes here.

Instead

of waiting for a review, will the minister stand in her place now and cancel

this lucrative contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

surprised that the Member opposite doesn't know more about corporate governance.

Mr. Speaker, there is a board of directors at the oil company, there is a CEO at

the oil company. If they require consultants – they are reviewing what

consultants they need going forward and moving forward, and continuing the

growth and opportunity in our oil and gas industry. They're reviewing what

contracts they have.

I will

leave that decision-making authority within the corporation itself, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite does know governance, I know he does, so I'll leave it at

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We've learned in the history

of this matter that the board of directors of the OilCo does exactly what it's

told to do by the government.

Would

the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are indeed some very honourable Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are serving

in boards of directors around this province. In particular, with our oil

company; in particular, with Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. I can name more. They are

learned individuals, they are dedicated individuals and they're giving greatly

of their time.

I can

say to the Member opposite, from time to time government can make written

directives to the corporation, and I have given some written directions – I

alluded to this the other day. Again, we're making repeated questions now on a

matter that has been dealt with. But I will say again, I have given written

directions on two very important things. One is on continued use of seismic, and

the second is on allocations for the Bay du Nord project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

provincial government is supposed to have five wildlife officers and three

occupational health and safety officers stationed in Labrador. These positions

are very important to the management of our wildlife populations, especially our

vulnerable George River caribou herd and the three Woodland caribou herds that

are threatened, actually, also for safety concerns with our vast mining industry

we have in Labrador. These positions are important. However, the media is

reporting that these important positions are not all filled. Actually, they're

not even advertised.

Given

that the Premier is retiring, I ask our only minister in Cabinet from Labrador:

How many of these positions are not filled?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate and understand the importance of having those

positions filled, not only for our caribou, but for the other positions in

Labrador. What I would like to report to the hon. Member – and I thank her for

the conversation that we had just yesterday about this issue – we are actively

engaged in not only seeking short-term, temporary arrangements to be able to

make sure that those positions are filled but, more importantly, we're looking

at long-term strategies.

alluded to just yesterday a more substantive effort to improve conservation and

enforcement, not only in Labrador, but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'll have more details on that in the coming days. What I will report to the

hon. Member, our addition of $5.4 million in a conservation agreement for

caribou leads to guardianship as well.

We have

the resources. We have the will. We're going to get the job done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Right now, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair is our only minister at

about the vacancies, she indicated that things are in play, but I learned later

that the vacancies are not even being advertised, and that, actually, is a

signal that they've given up.

We need

to have enforcement. Occupational health and safety is very, very important in

our type of industry; management – as the minister talked about – of the caribou

herds.

I have

to ask the minister: When you do expect the jobs to be filled?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

there's one thing that I am proud to stand in this House and talk about, it's

Labrador and the progress that we've seen in Labrador under this government, Mr.

Speaker. Everybody around this province knows the fiscal mess that we were in

when we formed government.

Despite

that, despite the fiscal challenges, hundreds of millions of dollars invested

from the Trans-Labrador Highway to broadband, to cell coverage, to investments

in communities, to water and sewer. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on.

Forty-five seconds in answering a question doesn't permit me to answer.

What I

can tell the people of this province is that Labrador and advancing Labrador,

mental health issues and the list goes on, has been a priority. There is a long

list of accomplishments that we are able to point to, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

I thank the minister for her

answer. I might say that all the benefits she talked about, none of them are

coming to the District of Torngat Mountains. None of those benefits is coming to

my district.

I also

want to point out the Labrador Affairs office in Lab West has been closed and

the executive director position eliminated. There's no Minister Responsible for

Labrador Affairs.

We're

forced to use a ferry for both the North Coast and South Coast that doesn't meet

our needs. The potential extinction of the George River caribou herd is not

being adequately addressed. Residents are facing food security, not only on the

North Coast but the South Coast.

Safety

is being jeopardized at the airstrips. Our main airstrip doesn't even have

running lights, so a medevac won't be able to get in at night. Residents are

telling me that Labradorians are simply not a priority – very, very important.

I ask

the minister: What's being done to reverse all these things that are happening

to our district?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I really

appreciate the question from the Member opposite. There were a couple of things

there that she had mentioned in her question. Number one, the office of Labrador

Affairs within Labrador with the current deputy minister, is now looking for

recruiting the next deputy minister, which will be located in Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. That was a decision that was made by this government for the first

time; as has been mentioned before, some of the first of many of the investments

that we've been able to make.

But it

doesn't necessarily mean that there's not more work to be done. Mr. Speaker, we

will continue as a government – all of us as a caucus and as a Cabinet will

continue to make investments in Labrador. The Member opposite addresses some of

the current concerns that we all know. More work needs to be done; we recognize

that, on top of the investments that we've been making for many years in

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, back on February

7 we submitted a letter to the Premier as part of the budget consultation

process. I ask the minister when we can expect to receive a response.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the officials in the Department of Finance have looked at the letter.

Some of the items in the letter we will be able to respond to prior to budget;

some of the items in the letter can only be answered in budget. All of the

items, I submit to the Member, will be answered either before or during the

budget.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I thank the Finance Minister

for his answer.

I follow

up with: When will the budget be tabled in the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

surprising question. I wasn't expecting it this year.

Mr.

Speaker, officials in the department are working hard on putting the budget

together. It is a very comprehensive document. As you know, Mr. Speaker,

mid-year update was a little bit later, in December, than ordinary as a result

of the budget being debated last year later than normal. We're hoping to have

the budget done within the normal time frames this year. The budget date I will

be happy to announce very near in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

I look forward to the

minister's definition of very near in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, each year government comes to this House with a bill, Interim Supply.

As a former civil servant, I know that this bill normally covers all of the

expenditures that may be needed for the first three months of the year, from

April to June, make sure we pay our salaries to all our staff, make sure we pay

our bills.

The

Interim Supply bill has normally been around $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. This

year the Finance Minister is asking for double that amount and I'd like to know

why.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely

hopeful that Members on the other side will vote for the budget this year. But

in the spirit of being absolutely willing to allow Members to vote whatever way

they want, I want to ensure, in case they decide they want to try to bring

government down, there's sufficient money to see us through the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, is the minister

now telling the House and the people of the province that he intends to spend

$4.6 billion, 53 per cent of current year budget expenditure, without bringing

down a budget?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely

not. Ordinarily – and this would not be the first time in the province's

history. In fact, last year we brought in Interim Supply for three months, then

we added an additional three months last year. We've had other years where we've

needed six months of Interim Supply.

To offer

the Members of the Opposition whatever option they choose in voting on the

budget, Mr. Speaker, we're putting in a six-month Interim Supply. They now have

the freedom, should they decide to vote against this government – which I don't

think they will, because we'll see what's in the budget – but they have that

freedom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

referred to the fact that last year they had to bring in two Interim Supplies.

One, I would argue, was brought in for the first three months of the year. Then

they threw in a snap election on top to the people of the province, and as a

result of that, had to go back and bring in another Interim Supply.

So is

the minister now telling the people of the province that we can expect to be

going to the polls this spring?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I certainly, hope not, Mr.

Speaker, but they'll make that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to Debbie Forward, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses'

Union, only 40 per cent of the nurses feel ready should there be a COVID-19

outbreak in this province. The minister said yesterday we are ready as any

province in this country, and better prepared than some.

What

does the minister say to the 60 per cent of our nurses who feel that we are not

ready? Do other health care workers feel the same way?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

With

regard to preparations for a potential outbreak or a sustained community

transmission of this virus, the regional health authorities have been working

very closely with government, and we in turn have been working very closely with

our national colleagues. We have a plan in place, that plan has been explained

through the RHAs, and we've modified it in the light of their input. We have

personal protective equipment stockpiled and distributed across the province,

and a rolling program, starting with emergency department staff and first

responders, to do the fit testing.

I can't

speak to the results and when their survey was done, but I can tell you that the

preparedness is increasing on a daily basis and we will have further measures to

announce as the situation unfolds.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the minister talked about fit testing and redistribution of N95

masks.

Can the

minister confirm that we have secured an adequate supply of N95 masks for all

health care workers including front-line workers and first responders?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The short answer to that

question is yes, Mr. Speaker.

elaborate a little further, we have engaged in a redistribution exercise between

various depots within the regional health authorities. Our shared services are

purchasing on a national and international basis where needed and we actually

have applied to the federal government for NESS stockpile access, that's

National Emergency supplies.

You will

recall from this time last year, that we actually have one of the few regional

depots based in Labrador which was a request of this government to the feds

because of difficulties with access to Labrador, particularly in the winter as

alluded to by the Member for Torngat Mountains.

We do

have the supplies, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the regional health authorities, are they conducting fit testing for

all first responders, not just for those who work directly for regional health

authorities such as private ambulance operators or fire departments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, we have a

provincial planning committee which has various acronyms, which I always forget,

but essentially it involves emergency services; that would be fire and emergency

services, as well as representatives of the ambulance companies.

We have

been in discussions with the ambulance groups – be they private, community or

regional health authority – to ensure that we understand what their needs are.

If they need additional resources we have asked them to let us know, and that

dialogue continues. But the short answer, again, to the question from the Member

opposite is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

province has a HealthLine that people can phone in if they need health advice.

Has the

HealthLine been provided with guidelines should an individual call in that are

suspected that they may have COVID-19?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What

about education for the public to ensure that they are taking the necessary

precautions to prevent acquiring the disease. Do you have a plan for public

awareness?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

These are very good

questions, Mr. Speaker, and it's nice to see substantive issues being discussed

at Question Period and I welcome the opportunity from my colleague opposite to

address these, so thank you very much.

Again.

the short answer is yes. Health and Community Services has a button on its

website which will take you to the federal website. We are refreshing our

handwashing messages. The staple for containment of this virus is simple,

straightforward, hand hygiene.

Masks

outside of the aerosol environment in health care are not recommended despite

the pictures that one sees across the province or across the globe. There is no

benefit to these from our advisors at the federal level and provincial level.

Should this situation change, obviously we will change tact, but, yes,

conventional methods, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I

welcome that the health professionals in the regional health authorities are

doing an immense amount of work to do this, the fact is the individuals need

some tangible pieces of information so they would be aware of exactly what may

be a notice that they may be exposed to a particular issue around the COVID-19

disease.

Can we

have, as we had in the past, a public awareness campaign which would include

print media and access for every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador, so

that we can reassure that everything is being done to make sure they're safe and

if, indeed, they do contract the COVID-19, that we have a process in place that

they immediately can access.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I like

these engagements where we have a chance to listen to some ideas. I am not

averse to the idea. I think if the Member opposite feels that this is a

deficiency in our current approach, I'm happy to address it and we have some

techniques to do that.

I think,

however, for the bulk of people, the approach we have adopted is satisfactory.

Should this be a gap, then we would be happy to work with them and with any

other stakeholders to address that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth

has shut down two facilities in British Columbia and thrown 500 people out of

work.

After

receiving tens of millions in taxpayer subsidies, being a mysterious company on

7 Plank Road, what discussions has the minister had with Canopy Growth about the

effect of their operational review on their Newfoundland operations? What

assurances can he offer the job seekers that lack the inside track with the

Liberal government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me

just be very clear: No grants, no loans, no direct investment has ever left the

provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to a business agency, either

Canopy or any other growth agency, with respect to cannabis in this province.

One

thing I can say, it's a very good question that the hon. Member did ask. What

have we done to assure this is going to happen? As soon as I heard this from the

changes with respect to what happened in BC – and by the way, I'm very

disappointed that happened, disappointed for the individuals that were impacted

by that from the West Coast of our country.

I spoke

to the management of Canopy. They assured me that they are full steam ahead with

the process, that we have a $90-million facility on East White Hills Road. I

encourage any Member in this House to take the opportunity to drive by and see

the investment that was put in this province by Canopy Growth.

Also, in

addition to that, there's going to be a job fair that they're going to be

announcing in the coming weeks for April. They're going to open the facility in

the spring of this year. I (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

The assurances from the company that's been lying for so long is probably not

that assuring.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the closures in BC, Canopy Growth has announced it will

no longer open a third greenhouse in Ontario.

Again,

given there appears to be a national glut of supply, why has the government not

mandated secondary processing in Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is wow.

We've

set-up an industry here; two years ago this industry didn't exist. We've built

an industry. They've put an over $90-million facility in the east end of St.

John's that's going to employ some 140-plus people in this province. There's a

job fair that's coming in the near future for April and I look forward to being

here to cut the ribbon in the facility in my district – in my district – later

on in this spring.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, this government has entered into various lucrative deals now

totalling over $100 million in subsidies to various numbered companies with a

production capacity of 42,000 kilograms.

Is the

minister still confident there is even a market? Will he admit these deals

should have included processing and packaging deals?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

The answer is yes. Our deals have included all of what the Member has talked

about.

It's

important; this is an industry that we're trying to grow – pardon the pun – in

this province, we're trying to grow the industry. It's an export marketplace for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Would

the Member sooner us import the product here and not create the hundreds of jobs

in this province? We've already created hundreds of jobs with respect to the

construction jobs. There will be hundreds more created when the production

facilities gets up and running. I look forward to that day. Every Member in this

House should look forward to it.

I know

every Member in this House has contacted Canopy, in particular, about looking

for jobs for their own constituents, like we all should. We all should be

looking for opportunities for people in our districts to get employment.

These

are good jobs for the people in our province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, now that we know the Premier present is in charge, let's talk about

what he's doing.

The PUB

report on rate mitigation clearly outlines seven actions that must be completed

within the first three months of the reports release. We are now almost halfway

through this first three-month period.

I ask

the Premier: Which of these seven actions has he completed? Please be specific.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We do

indeed have a team of people on rate mitigation, rate management. There's a

secretariat set up within the Department of Natural Resources that is working

diligently every day on this matter, Mr. Speaker. They have taken the PUB report

and the timelines that the Public Utilities Board has requested in its report

itself and they are working towards the implementation.

I can

tell you, Mr. Speaker, they have advanced on many of the key issues including,

for example, electrification. There has already been an RFP put out there on

that matter. They've advanced on ensuring more electrification for rural and

remote communities.

I'm out

of time. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was

a remarkable lack of specificity.

The

opening of Bishop Feild school in St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has been delayed

several times now.

I ask

the Minister of Transportation and Works: What assurances can he provide that

Bishop Feild school will reopen in time for the fall 2020 semester?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

It is a

good question. I share the frustration of the students, teachers, families and

everybody with those delays. The reality, the envelope of repairs that we went

in to do originally, Mr. Speaker, have been completed. When removing the coal

room on the back of the building, we discovered infiltration of water in the

gymnasium. Right now we have to wait for spring to come so we can excavate on

the back of the building. The gymnasium is below grade.

What I

can assure the hon. Member is we will certainly work for September, but at no

time will we put children in an environment that's not safe. There's a water

issue here and we have to resolve that before we can put children back in this

facility.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, two members of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council

resigned over the minister's failure to release the natural area system plan. In

the wake of their resignations, the minister has since decided to release it.

I ask

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, since he has apparently had an

epiphany moment and realized the errors of his ways: Will he invite the two

members who resigned to return to the council?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

deeply value the work of WERAC and all of its members. There was a context and a

preamble that was incorrect.

One of

the things that I think the House would gain benefit from is learning that WERAC

provides advice to government; WERAC has not ever tabled their advice. They're

independent of government. I would never suggest to WERAC, nor I don't think any

Member would, that they should be stymied or stifled or censored.

I did

not ask WERAC permission to release the report; I asked them if they would

consider releasing it themselves in its entirety without any reservations,

without any qualification. WERAC has agreed to do that. They have not yet

completed their plan. I asked them to do it at their earliest possible

convenience and they have agreed to do –

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

I take it the answer then is,

no. It would've been simpler.

Since

2017, government has lost two court challenges launched by conservation groups

and concerned citizens as a result of its decisions to release major aquaculture

projects from thorough environmental assessment. Government appealed the first

and lost. That's three for three. It would seem government would rather spend

public money on court cases and appeals rather than doing the right thing.

I ask

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment: Will he table a full

accounting of the public funds his department has spent in legal fees and other

resources to fight these court cases?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, it's not

uncommon for a case to end up in court when you have a group of people involved

in the environment. The environment is very close to everyone's heart. There are

a number of people in this province and throughout this world who take the

environment very seriously, as we do.

We do

our due diligence in those projects; we do everything we possibly can. But when

a case comes before the courts the outcome of that is left in the hands of the

judge. When the judge rules on these proceedings and in these cases, Mr.

Speaker, we are left to deal with the outcome of that result, which we plan to

do in the case this Member has referred to.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

A simple follow-up: Will he

release the amount of money that they have spent in resources and public funds

in fighting these court cases? I don't need the process; I need to know will he

table that amount here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER:

We have time for a quick

answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Of course, Mr. Speaker, but I

would like to know how far the hon. Member would like me to go back. Would he

like me to go back since 1949, the history of this province, or would he like me

to go back in the last two or three years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

on a point of order, Standing Order 49, Mr. Speaker. During the Ministerial

Statements there was a statement made by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi concerning – what she attributed to me was that I had said about redactions

of the report.

Mr.

Speaker, what I did say about the Muskrat Falls report – A Misguided Project is the name of it – is it comprises six volumes

and over a thousand pages. It will be reviewed for legal sensitivities and for

legal interests. That is prudent and responsible and at the advice of counsel

who was with me this morning.

I do not

– and I said this publicly, I do not – anticipate any deferral of information,

but we are going to make sure that the legal teams do have a chance to have a

quick view at this for legal interest.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will take this matter under

advisement and report to the House at a later date.

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

stand on a point of order regarding the inaccurate information that the hon.

Member for Terra Nova cited about the millions and millions of dollars offered

to Canopy in this case. That is not the case. That is not true information

that's been spoken in the House of Assembly.

I would

ask the hon. Member to stand in his place and apologize because it's inaccurate

information. This is about standing up and providing the general public with an

opportunity for –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. DAVIS:

Right, so it's very important

that we get that apology, please.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader,

to this point of order.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

speak to this to outline. What my colleague from Terra Nova had outlined was the

amounts of money that have been discussed around what would be given to that

company. There was no discussion here around the total amount of money or that

millions and millions – he was referring to what is known in the public domain

as the agreement with Canopy Growth. I feel there is no point of order in this

discussion.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further to this point of

order?

MR. DAVIS:

No, this is the second one.

That was my first point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

To that point of order, I'm

going to take this matter under advisement. It seems to be a disagreement

between two Members, but I'm going to review what was said and make a ruling at

a later date.

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

On a second point of order

that was said later in that exchange about the fact that I was lying about the

information that was coming forward, there's nothing further from the truth in

that case. All I can say is that I'm disappointed that was the case.

The hon.

Member for Terra Nova, I know he probably didn't mean it in the way it came

across, but that's the way I took it and that's the way I guess the general

public would. If that was what he meant, fair. I'd like him to clarify that or

apologize for it if that was what he meant.

MR. SPEAKER:

To this point of order, the

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Just for clarification sakes,

the question that was asked to the minister was not inferring in any way, shape,

or form that the minister was lying, but that the information wasn't accurate

that the company was sharing with the general public, Mr. Speaker. I do

encourage you to review it, but we feel there's no point of order on this

particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER:

I will take this matter under

advisement and report to the House later on.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Labrador

West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a

petition here from Labrador West. These are the reasons for this petition.

Since

2010, the province has seen significant work stoppages, including a 16-month

strike at Vale in Voisey's Bay in 2010 to 2011 and a two-year lockout at D-J

Composites in 2016 to 2018. These work stoppages involve multinational

corporations that have practices that have altered the balancing of collective

bargaining.

The

industrial inquiry into the Voisey's Bay strike recommended changes to the

Labour Relations Act to include the

imposition of binding arbitration as an effective means for fair collective

agreements when all else fails. The only way to uphold the workers' right to a

strike is to ensure companies are not permitted to replace their workers during

a labour dispute.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring forward amendments to the

Labour Relations Act to impose binding

arbitration – when only one of the two parties make application – in cases where

strikes or lockouts are prolonged, where collective bargaining has failed or

when it's in the public interest to do so; and bring forward amendments to the

Labour Relations Act to ban the use of

replacement workers.

Mr.

Speaker, I have 163 signatures here for this. This has been called upon time and

time again. There has even been, at one point, a private Member's motion in this

House to look at changes to the legislation.

Like I

said, I have 163 signatures here of members of my community who feel that it's

time to make these changes to the Labour

Relations Act and to impose these changes that will stop prolonged work

stoppages and to limit the use of replacement workers during labour disputes.

This is one of the root causes of prolonged work stoppages and the breakdown of

the bargaining process.

I agree

with this petition and that we should have this. It's been in the Voisey's Bay

report. I have a copy of the Voisey's Bay report. That was one of the two

recommendations that have not been implemented in that report.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you for

the opportunity and I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward a petition.

I'd just

like to make sure I stand on the record. It's very important as the minister

responsible for labour that we always have to strike the balance between the

needs and the wants of employees and the needs and the wants of employers. It's

always important to strike that balance.

I thank

the Member for standing on his feet and bringing forward a petition. I'm sure

that the department will in turn look at that petition and deal with it

accordingly.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest incidence of cardiac disease

in Canada and we need to do what we can to improve our ability to save lives;

and

WHEREAS the implementation of a new registry can be completed for less than the

cost of a new vehicle; and

WHEREAS after implementation, the annual cost will be five cents per resident;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation requiring all AEDs in the

province be registered with an online registry. This registry must also be

linked to the 911 system to enable faster response times in the case of cardiac

emergencies.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I've presented pretty well since 2016,

thereabouts. It's a very serious issue in that these AEDs are wonderful

machines. They're a life-saving piece of equipment, but they're not looked

after, registered – when I say being registered, we're talking about the

batteries checked and the pads checked.

In a lot of government buildings and municipalities, they look after the

maintenance of these machines. In other places, they're used as coat racks. It's

a reality that we face, but it unfortunate. Even though they save lives, people

don't understand the importance of keeping it up to date.

I use the example similar to a fire extinguisher. If you're not going around

checking fire extinguishers, making sure they're operational, they're not going

to be there when you need them for a fire. They're not there for coat racks,

they're there to save lives and we need to enact something to have these

registered that they're ready when needed.

Another example is a 911 call. If they're integrated into the 911 system, when

you call 911, the 911 operator can quickly tell you, if you're in the

Confederation Building, they'll know where the nearest AED is. That's what first

responders need to know. It's not always for first responders, it could be

someone in this Chamber – heaven forbid – and we may need to know where the

nearest AED is. That's the reality we live with.

Right now, they're everywhere and they're great life-saving pieces of equipment,

but without this registry, to be able to know where they are, to be able to know

they're always up to date, to be able to tie them into our 911 system, is a

serious flaw.

Mr. Speaker, we're the only province in the country without a registry. I

actually have been involved with this. I have a family in my district who suffer

from this. One of them just had a heart transplant, the son, from this

arrhythmia. Suddenly your heart – I'm lost for the word now, but they have the

gene in this family. It's very common throughout the province, as we know.

They've championed it, the Delaney family, and I've worked with them. I've also

worked with the Heart and Stoke Foundation over the years with this as well.

This registry is right across the country, but we don't have one here. It's very

cheap. It's not expensive. I know it falls down the priority of all the bigger

issues in a lot of government departments, and I get that because one time I was

behind the scenes with the previous administration, I understand priorities in

all department, but people need to really take a serious look –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

Be respectful on the issue,

please.

This

issue is very serious because, heaven forbid, if someone were to ever lose their

lives for the lack of a battery or bad pad because it could have been done so

simply and easy and inexpensively, or the fact that you call 911 and there was

an AED around the corner but no one could direct you to where it's too, the end

result is unimaginable. One life is way too many. They save lives.

respectfully ask government to take this as a serious matter, work with the

Heart and Stroke because they're reaching out to us. They've reached out to

government, they've come to me and they're speaking publicly about it. I support

this cause and I think we all should support this cause; it's a very important

issue.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

comment on that. Being the minister responsible for 911 and Fire and Emergency

Services in this province, I know the value of an AED first-hand; I've used it

first-hand. I've actually helped save someone's life first-hand, so I know the

value of those AEDs, having their batteries checked and people knowing where

they are. I think it's a great point if the 911 people know where these AEDs

are. Most are in public buildings throughout this province.

I know

this government have provided a grant in the last number of years to the Heart

and Stroke Foundation to put them in numerous building. You go and you will see

AED signs everywhere, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of our public buildings. It's very

important because at events is when you see a lot of people congregated, so it's

nice for your first responders to know where they are. Most would have them on

their equipment, but it's nice to know when they get to an event that they're

there. Sometimes there are volunteers actually in that area; it's nice to know.

having a registry, Sir, to know where they are, I'd love to talk to more about

this because I think it's a great idea. If you'd like to have this conversation

with us and with me, I look forward to it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the Adult Dental

Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug

Program under Access and 65Plus Plans was eliminated in

Budget 2016.

Low-income families and low-income individuals, particularly seniors, are

struggling with the cost of living and struggling to meet some of their basic

needs. Many seniors and low-income individuals and families can no longer access

basic dental care and those same individuals can now longer access dentures,

leading to many other digestive and medical issues.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover seniors

and low-income individuals and families to ensure better oral health, quality of

life and dignity.

Mr.

Speaker, I presented this petition on several occasions and it continues still

to go underneath the radar of our province's administration. It's often said

that the gateway to good overall health is good oral health. Good oral health

has been linked to other issues within your mental health and your physical

health, but one of them I would like to speak to today is mental health.

I've

read several studies and I'm a big believer that a smile is a powerful way to

change the way you feel and the way you think. It's actually clinically proven

that smiling does improve how you feel about yourself. If those individuals who

are not able to afford good dental care don't feel confident about smiling, how

do you think they feel on the inside? This is a practical investment in our

province's health and it will result in savings in medical issues.

Right

now, what happens is if people cannot afford dental care, they just cannot

afford it, so a problem that probably could have been fixed with a $200 or $300

visit to the dentist is allowed to magnify and accelerate to a point where it

may result in a 10- or 14-day hospital stay at $900 a day.

Mr.

Speaker, I cannot see the financial reasoning for cutting out this program and

allowing our people to suffer. The reality is if people cannot afford dental

care, they can't afford it. That's where government should be stepping in.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the

Order Paper, Motion 5, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Environment, the following resolution:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform to be established

further to a private Member's resolution passed in this House on December 4,

2019, will comprise of the following Members: the Member for Carbonear - Trinity

- Bay de Verde, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for Windsor Lake, the

Member for Topsail - Paradise, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the

Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall establish its priorities within the

scope of authority set for it in the resolution adopted by the House on December

4, 2019; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform may, in the

completion of its work, travel from time to time within the province; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform report its

progress to this hon. House before the end of the winter-spring sitting of this

House, 2021; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution of any further matters relating to the

mandate or operations of said Committee be brought to this House for approval.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe it's very straightforward. It allows us to move forward,

then, with the establishment of this Select Committee, which I think is

important and has the support of the House. So I'll leave it at that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

speak to that, and I thank the minister.

I do

notice that – with some amusement, actually – the date that's set out in the

resolution for when the Select Committee on Democratic Reform will report its

progress to the House and that is before the end of the winter-spring sitting of

this House, 2021. That could be a year down the road. It could be a year and

several months down the road.

There

are many wise people in the House of Assembly on all sides who would probably

think that it's highly likely that there'll be an election before that point in

time.

The

problem with efforts made in this House on democratic reform since 2015 and the

advent of the Liberal government has been a lack of interest in doing anything

on the part of the Liberal government. This has been expressed by delay, by

statements from the responsible minister – not my friend here today, but a

different minister – that he, in fact, was too busy to be seized with and pay

any attention to democratic reform.

There's

a general lack of interest, lack of will and sense of awkwardness with the fact

that in 2015, during the course of the General Election that brought the current

Liberal government to power, they actually made a promise to act on democratic

reform.

As we

well know, we're now doing more procedural things that make it appear like

something is actually happening, but will it? Because there does not seem to be

a will on the other side to actually achieve anything along the lines of

democratic reform. So, Mr. Speaker, you'll forgive me if I inject a note of

skepticism into my remarks.

The fact

of the matter is that there's a hunger in many sections of the population of

this province for meaningful democratic reform that that embraces as well the

reform of the electoral process. In fact, in the 2015 Blue Book my friends

across the aisle in the Liberal Party resolved that the Committee, which they

promised to set-up to examine into democratic reform, would examine electoral

reform, finance reform and along those lines would also consider the need for

regulation of party leadership election finances.

We have

seen that the Liberal Party itself – and I appreciate that the Liberal Party is

not the government, but the government is a Liberal government – in the context

of the current race for Liberal leader and Premier, has displayed a remarkable

dinosaur attitude on the question of leadership campaign finance reform. In

fact, they have brought forward not a set of rules around that but no rules.

Some

people call that dark money rules. Dark money simply means that there's no

reporting of how much, from whom or how spent. No receipting, no accountability,

no transparency, that's what dark money is.

It's

astonishing that in this day and age, with the hunger for democratic reform and

with the precedent of political parties across the country requiring more

transparency – it is absolutely remarkable that the Liberal Party of this

province, which is the party behind the government opposite, would have the

temerity to tell –

MS. COADY:

Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Point of order.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of order, SO 48 - Relevancy.

The

Member opposite seems to want to get into a robust debate on issues within a

political party rather than the merit of creating a Committee. I'll leave that

to your good judgment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Does anyone want to speak to

that point of order?

I'll

just remind Members to stay relevant to the debate. We're talking about the

establishment of the Committee. I think Members will be given some leeway in

terms of talking about why we need to establish such a Committee, so I'm not

going to rule that it is not relevant to the debate.

The hon.

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Sir.

reason for bringing this in is that electoral reform is part of democratic

reform. Electoral reform is more specifically focused on how we run our

elections and also on election financing; in fact, election financing has been,

in the last House, a particular focus of the government within the context of

democratic reform.

It is

the government that campaigned on the premise that there might be a need to

extend electoral financing regulation – which we do now in the context of

general elections and by-elections – to the process of selecting party leaders.

That's why I was making that remark. It's relevant to democratic reform, within

which we have the topic of electoral reform.

It's the

government itself that thought there might need to be regulation around that. It

is the activity of the – or inactivity, depending on how you see it – of the

Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador that shows the relevance of the need

to regulate leadership campaign financing.

Mr.

Speaker, much remains to be done in the area. There was a book published about

democratic reform – we're all familiar with it, I think – by many contributors.

Short essays on various aspects from people from all walks of life in the

province, showing that amongst many people in the province there is a desire

that we do get on with the job of overhauling how we do democracy here.

Let's

face it; we are a democracy, a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy,

which means that the majority will does not always carry, because there are

minority rights which are enforceable by the courts. They are constitutional

rights and override things that Parliament or the Legislature sometimes want to

do which infringe those rights.

We are

all proud to be citizens of that system, of a great country, Canada, and a great

province, Newfoundland and Labrador, but it needs improvement. That is the need

for this Committee. That is the need for the Members of this Committee, of which

I am pleased to be one, to get on with the work in a serious fashion of serious

democratic reform – serious democratic reform, not just go through the motions

for it. On that basis, I support the resolution.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity this afternoon.

I'll

just take a few moments to respond to some of the remarks made by the Leader of

the Official Opposition. First of all, I want to thank Minister Parsons and the

staff at the Department of Justice for the tremendous work they did behind the

scenes, because I can tell you, you wouldn't think listening to the Leader of

the Opposition there was any work done.

There

was volumes and volumes and volumes of work done, Mr. Speaker, because when you

get into something like democratic reform – this whole process has been tried in

many jurisdictions across the country and even around the world and it's a very,

very delicate thing to actually reform. The Department of Justice, under

Minister Parsons's leadership, did a tremendous job.

MR. SPEAKER:

I just want to remind the

Member not to use a minister's name in the House. You did it twice. You should

refer to a Member by their district name or their title.

MR. CROCKER:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been

here going on six years and this is the first time I had to apologize. I do

apologize to the hon. Minister of Justice for using his name, but I do want to

thank him and the Department of Justice for the tremendous work they did.

Actually, that work that was done by the Department of Justice is now, my

understanding, being transferred to the all-party Committee, so I think what the

Members of this new Committee will quickly find is that there was significant

work done previously. I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for their

leadership in actually bringing this to the floor and convincing, I think, this

entire House to support that private Member's motion just before Christmas.

I don't

think there's anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, or in this province, that

isn't looking forward to democratic reform. I fully support a lot of the things

that will come out of this – campaign finance reform. I had the opportunity last

week to actually join the Premier and his Youth Council over in the West Block

in the afternoon. We spent I think it was little over an hour with the Youth

Council. It was youth from all around this province. I can tell you of that day

and in that hour they had a real keen interest in democratic reform and how they

got involved in politics and how we get young people involved in politics.

For me,

it was easy. I've been voting since I could find a way to vote, whether it was

14 as a youth or 16 or when I became old enough to vote in general and regular

elections at 18, but we need to find a way to engage people. It's important. If

we don't put the fundamentals like campaign reform, finance reform in there, it

does make it harder to engage young people. I'm not going to belabour this, but

I just wanted to correct some of the information from the Leader of the Official

Opposition talking about nothing being done and that type of false information

because there has been tremendous work done.

As a

Member of this Committee, along with my colleague for Mount Scio, I look forward

to getting the Committee up and running. I look forward to the involvement of

the independent MHA on this Committee, because as democracy transforms, I think,

or as our democracy evolves – if you look at European countries with our

parliamentary system, they've long since evolved into many different political

parties and independents. So we have to also define the role of independents and

other political parties in a more fractured, I think, system that we'll see in

the future.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I look forward to the Committee getting

down to work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it's a pleasure to stand and speak to this private

Member's motion.

I have

to say there's a little bit of skepticism here – just a little bit. When I first

came to government, which is a little over a year ago now, we formed the

Committee. We sat on the Committee and we had perhaps two meetings – maybe three

but two for sure.

I agree

with the Member for – I'll have to find out now, I don't want to say his name –

Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. I have to agree with him that there has been

work done behind the scenes, but bringing it together as a Committee and

starting to get down into the brass tacks of it all hasn't been always on

schedule.

To have

a Committee in place and, hopefully, have some regularly scheduled work as we

move forward would be fabulous. I know we've set a deadline for winter and

spring of 2021, which is fabulous. We need a deadline; you need a target in

which to work towards.

I look

back to when I first started campaigning and people were asking me back in the

by-election what you think about running and different things around that. One

of the things I talked about – it relates to democratic reform – is the amount

of money that people can utilize to run. There are so many individuals out there

who may not have access to the funds that others have. So we're eliminating

individuals that could be fabulous representatives of the people of their

districts; yet, because of affordability, they can't run.

In terms

of democratic reform, that's something that we should be looking at. Are we

electing the person with the most signs on the road or are we electing the

person that's going to do the best job? Unfortunately, sometimes finances come

into that play. Either they don't run or they don't have enough opportunity to

go out and see the people and take available of the different mediums that are

available to promote themselves, at a cost.

I really

applaud the move forward here. We talk about the voting systems, we need some

democratic reform on that. You talk about electronic voting and you talk about

different ways of getting people to the polls, this is something we certainly

need to address through democratic reform.

Voting

age; voting age has always been an issue. How old should an individual be in

order to cast a vote? I know it's a little different when you talk about your

party politics and the age limit of how you can vote there, and it's for all

parties. It's a lot lower than 18; you know, 14 or 16. We really need to look at

some consistency there in terms of what's the age or what's the proper age in

which people can be deemed to be responsible to vote? Some of those are issues

we have to address.

Again, I

talked about the funding for individuals, or what individuals can get to run.

Like I said, I think it eliminates some people who could be running but can't

run because they can't afford it.

We also

need to address the funding around political parties. That's something we need

to address through democratic reform. We really need to talk about individuals

who can really and truly represent the people in their district. Again, not the

person who has the bigger access to a bank account.

The role

of third party groups in elections, we need to address that through democratic

reform, making sure that everyone is represented. Democracy is representing the

people through an individual.

It's

wonderful to see, through this motion, that independents are going to be on this

Committee, and I think that's a good thing. I think we really need to have full

representation on this Select Committee to make it work, because we're all

elected to represent the individuals in our district. If an independent is

elected, then we should have that voice at the table. '

There

has been a lot of work behind the scenes. There have been reasons why we haven't

been able to meet on a regular basis, and a lot of those are perhaps beyond

anyone's control. Other things take priority; other things jump in and throw

your meetings off track. I'm really, really hopeful, moving ahead with this,

that we have a time limit, winter-spring of 2021, to get something done. I hope

we set some regular meetings, make regular scheduling to sit down and make sure

we progress this along.

I know

in working with the past Committee and the Department of Justice and Public

Safety that there was a tremendous amount of literature compiled – binders and

binders. There are lots of templates and benchmarks, information that you can

utilize out there. It takes a while to compile it, but it certainly takes an

even bigger effort to go through that information. That information hopefully is

still available and there's a lot of sifting through on that.

You

don't want to push this too quickly. I realize that, because you want to do a

good job on it. But democratic reform is so important that having a Committee

together with representation from all groups within the House here will cover

all the bases, hopefully. As we move forward, we can start having some real

discussion on the issue, come up with some real thoughts and recommendations on

the issue, with all the goal to make this a better run House in terms of how we

deal with issues, how people are elected and what people can do and say.

As we

talked about the other day with the artificial intelligence, things are

changing. Technology is changing. Technology is affecting democracy, so we have

to be ahead of that. We have to look at ways in which voting is done. Your

population is changing. Your demographic is changing. Your election base is

changing. It's probably getting smaller.

I look

at the issues we talked to on the previous democratic reform. Some of the issues

we were looking at there were the voting systems and methods, which I've already

mentioned. So hopefully that will remain as an item. I don't see anything

changing here.

Voting

age was an item we had there previously, so I don't see that changing. Funding

of political parties was there previously, I don't see that changing. I

mentioned already the role of third party groups in the election campaigns. I

see that as remaining on the agenda for this.

Timing

and date of elections, that's what we had on the past one as well. I hope

that'll stay there as well, because at the end of the day, you want to be aware

of when your election is happening. People out there want to be aware of when

the election is happening. It's not fair, I don't believe, to the individuals

out there – depending on the issue, the reason for it – calling snap elections,

jumping in there. Most of that is done for political gain and not for to

represent people.

So I

need to ensure that those remain on the agenda, and I certainly will be

supporting this Committee. I'm looking forward to our first meeting, and I'm

looking forward to us making some advancements here and getting down to some

real work and working as an all-party group.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted

to stand and agree with this motion. This is a real joy to see that democratic

reform is going to be done quite democratically. I am pleased to see that we

have a proportional or an equal representation of ideas and parties at the

table, and we have a broad mandate that will allow us a great deal of latitude

at looking at all aspects of true democratic reform.

Certainly, the Member for Topsail - Paradise and the Member for Windsor Lake

brought up very good points about some of the things we can consider in that

mandate. I'm not sure if any of the other Members have been attending the Green

New Deal sessions they've had, but they are also quite interested and have

offered a great deal of suggestions around democratic reform. I look forward to

engaging them on helping us get a good sense of what our mandate ought to be and

getting started on that work.

So I am

delighted to be able to say that I support this motion and I'm sure my caucus

also supports this motion and we look forward to getting started on this work as

soon as possible.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly is a pleasure to stand up and speak to this motion. Obviously, I will

be supporting it.

The

first thing I want to say is that, really, when we look at the Committees of the

House of Assembly that currently exist, in my view, and I know people can have

their own views, but, in my view, this will be the first truly democratic

Committee that we will actually have in this House because it will include an

independent Member of the House.

Whereas, in all of the other Committees of the

House, independents are not recognized, which is something that needs to go on

the list. It definitely needs to be recognized based on the fact that we now

have two elected independent Members. We had a number of other people run as

independents in the last election and I suspect there will be people that will

run as independents in future elections. I think it's important to recognize

that fact.

I don't

want to belabour or get too much into what the Leader of the Official Opposition

said. I'm not looking for any controversy in terms of the current leadership

race within the governing party, but I do concur with him from the perspective

of that current race that it indeed is very relevant to this House of Assembly

and it is indeed very relevant to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is

indeed very relevant to the whole concept of democratic reform because, in this

particular case, this is not just about a party selecting a leader, this

particular race is actually about selecting the next premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Whoever

should win this particular race is not just going to be the leader of a

particular party, they're actually going to be the premier and that person could

be the premier for a year or more, potentially. It could be sooner than that, we

don't know what's going to happen, but that person could be the premier for a

year.

It is

absolutely relevant, when you think about it, that we are going to be selecting

a premier – my understanding is that under those leadership rules, similar to

the last leadership rules, anybody in the province can sign up and vote for that

leader, if they so desire. So it absolutely is very relevant when you think

about the issues around disclosure of donations and so on.

Now, I

know one of the candidates, to his credit, placed his own self-imposed cap on

spending; albeit way, way too high in my opinion but he still did it,

nonetheless. He has indicated that he will disclose, on his own, any campaign

donations. I think that's admirable. I hope the other candidate, and if there

are other candidates who come forward, that they decide to do the same thing. I

definitely think the party needs to look at changing their rules to make that

mandatory. Anyway, that's their business what they do, but, again, it is

relevant because it does impact us all, we're selecting a premier.

There

are so many things, Mr. Speaker, that I could stand up and speak about when it

comes to democratic reform. Certainly it's been something that I've raised in

this House of Assembly on numerous occasions, as well as outside the House of

the minister a number of times; I've written the Premier on it. I'm very, very

pleased to see that we're finally going to be moving forward. I'm certainly very

pleased to be part of this Committee.

I do

want to thank my colleague from the Bay of Islands because he, too, had a keen

interest in this but he decided, after a lot of discussion, to allow me to be

the independent Member on the Committee. I thank him for that.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of things that need to be looked. Certainly campaign

financing, as has already been mentioned, that's a big one. I really believe

that is a huge one.

One of

the things that I think I was able to do and establish – I can't speak for my

colleague here from Bay of Islands, but I know, in my particular case, the last

two times I had run, I had spent somewhere in the $25,000 range. Maybe a little

more on one, a little bit less on another, but around that $25,000 mark. I

believe I could have spent $35,000, $40,000, somewhere in that range, based on

the formula and the population. This time around, the last election, I did it on

$8,000. I didn't need to spend $25,000.

I think

that goes to show that the amount of money that we spend on these campaigns and,

therefore, the amount of money that we need to raise to compete, that it

absolutely be significantly reduced; don't need to be spending that kind of

money. It's not necessary.

When we

look at things such as election signage, as an example, do we really need to

have a big election sign competition? I can understand, yes, if someone wants to

put a small sign on their lawn or whatever, their personal property, fine and

dandy. But do we need to be getting into this situation where I put up a two by

two, somebody has to put up a four by four next to me so then I counter it with

a four by eight? I put up one sign, my opponent puts up two signs, the next guy

puts up three signs and we have the whole place littered in signage. What a

waste of money.

Why not

have a system by which – I'll just use my area as an example, Mount Pearl -

Southlands – we designate four or five locations at each corner of the district

and every candidate sticks up one sign and that's it; no more signs allowed on

public property. What you do on private property is your own business, but I'm

thinking of the rural areas. We put one at the beginning of the small town and

one at the end; one coming this way and one coming that way; people can see.

Everybody in the community knows who's running anyway and give up the rest of

the foolishness. What a waste of money, what a waste of time and what a waste of

volunteer effort. Then they blow down and you have to fix them up again. They

get damaged with vandalism; you have to fix them up again. Think about it.

That's one little thing that costs a ton of money, all kinds of time and

resources and everything and for what? How foolish is it?

should be debating the issues. It shouldn't be about who has the glossiest

brochure or who has the most brochures. I've said in the past, do we really need

party leaders to have a great big giant bus with their face on it? What's that

all about? Is it just a big ego trip or what is it, really? Is it necessary?

We can

have our debates. The leaders can have their debates. Usually they'll have four

or five around the province or whatever. The media will put off one or two; I

think the university usually will put off one. There's one on the West Coast,

there's one in Labrador or whatever. Let the leaders get out there and have

their debate and let everybody watch.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Ban Brazil's rig.

MR. LANE:

Do what?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Ban Brazil's rig.

MR. LANE:

Ban Brazil's rig. Yeah. Well,

at least he's recycling. I will say for the Member for Conception Bay East -

Bell Island, at least he's recycling. He kept his vehicle with his face and his

number on it so he'll recycle. That's good, I suppose.

My point

is that if we're really supposed to be debating the issues and people really

want to make informed decisions based on what that candidate and/or that party

has to offer, then that's really what it should be all about. I definitely think

that we can be reducing the amount of money that we spend and, therefore, reduce

the amount of money that we need to raise. It puts everyone on a more even

playing field and then you're not beholden. Then parties are not necessarily

beholden to big corporations. Whether they are or whether it's real or whether

it's perceived, if it's only perceived, then the perception is gone because you

don't need them anymore. That's definitely something we need to do.

I think

the use of Committees in the House of Assembly, we call them all-party

Committees. I like this. Again, a Select Committee that involves – if there are

independents, they should be involved as well, but the use of Committees, I

think, is a very positive thing. We need to do more of it, particularly when it

comes to legislative review.

I know

we did a little pilot project on one piece of legislation for sure and I think

it worked out well. I think we need to do more of it. We don't need to have a

Committee meet on every single piece of legislation, particularly if it's just a

housekeeping thing, something minor, but when we have a significant piece of – I

think back on, for example, the Procurement Act that came through here. That

involves the expenditure of literally billons of dollars of taxpayers' money –

billions. You come in, you get a briefing a day or so before it comes to the

House, comes on the floor and then you're expected to debate that. So much of

that was in the regulations and we had no input into the regulations.

When it

comes to significant pieces of legislation, why not have all representation from

all parties or Members and so on to actually have some meaningful input. I know

there will be some who will say: You had your opportunity for input; it's called

the floor of the House of Assembly. But we all know the reality of it is that

government, particularly if they're in a majority, which, except for now – this

is the first time, I think in our history, we never had a majority government. I

could be wrong but I think so. Traditionally, government brings in the

legislation and whatever they bring forward passes.

I can

stand up here forever and say I have a concern about this clause or that clause.

I can ask questions in Committee of the Whole and so on but, generally speaking,

all I'm doing is recording my disagreement or my input for the sake of

Hansard so if it gets passed and

people have problems with it and they come to me, I can say: Yeah, I spoke about

that. I said I didn't agree with that. That's all you're doing but you're not

actually changing it.

As Tom

Marshall said in this House of Assembly one time – a man I have great respect

for, by the way – Oppositions have their say. Government gets its way. He was

absolutely right. That's the way our system generally works. I understand;

governments need to govern. I get that and I'm not against that principle, but

the issue I have is that everybody in this House of Assembly was elected by the

people. We all represent a portion of the population and we should all be heard.

So,

yeah, at the end of the day it's democracy. We can vote and so on, but make sure

we all have the opportunity for input and I mean meaningful input. If I can

raise a point or my colleague can raise a point, someone in the Opposition or

the Third Party can raise a point and it make sense that there actually was an

oversight, that somebody over here actually thought about something that someone

over there didn't think about, that somebody acknowledges it and says: You know

what? You're right. We never thought of that. That's a good point. We can make a

little amendment if required. That's where we need to get.

I think

that work would work better in a Committee structure where there are no cameras,

there's no soapbox, there's no grandstanding, there's no politics. It is just

individuals sitting around the table, hopefully all with the best intentions to

do what's right that can compromise, can work together and can make things

better. That's really what it's all about. That's what it should be about. The

use of Committees, I think, is a good thing.

I think

about things such as fixed election dates. Someone raised the issue about the

elections and how elections are called. We have fixed election date legislation;

however, the problem is that it sets a date for the election and then it gives

this escape clause, basically, where the government can say, yes, fixed election

date, but I've decided that I'm going to just ignore that and go the

Lieutenant-Governor and call an election. Simple as that.

What's

the point of a fixed election date if the government of – the idea of the fixed

election date was supposed to be that there was continuity, there was certainty

and that government, whatever government it was, wouldn't be calling elections

based on: we better call it now before the bad news comes, or we better call it

now because there's good news or the polls look good so for our advantage. No,

it's a fixed date and the chips fall where they may on that date. That was how

it was supposed to be put in place.

The

problem, of course, is the legislation has that loophole that says even though

there's a fixed date, as the government we can just go in and call an election

whenever we feel like it. That's something that needs to be fixed as far as I'm

concerned.

I could

go on and on and on with the different issues that could be looked at. Recall

legislation is something that was brought to the floor of the House of Assembly

here in the past. My former colleague for Mount Pearl North, I believe, brought

it in. I think it was a private Member's motion if I'm not mistaken. It got

defeated but they do have it in BC. I know people will say there are mixed

reviews on it, but it's something that should be looked at.

Recall

legislation doesn't mean that government can't govern. It's not as simple as you

make a decision and all of a sudden the government is overthrown or members are

overthrown. That's not how it works. For a Member to be ousted in BC I think

there's a requirement of, I want to say 60 per cent – I could be wrong – of the

population. It would require a concerted effort by someone in that community to

go door to door to door to door to door and obtain the signatures of the

majority of the district.

First of

all, who's even going to go through that hassle and then who's going to actually

sign that at the door, unless it was something so egregious, so egregious that

the population as a whole said, yes, this person has to go. If they did

something that was so bad, so be it, let them go but, again, it's something else

that could be looked at and should be looked at. There are so many things, I

think, that we could be doing, that we should be doing, to improve our

democracy. Those are just a few.

I know

the Member for Windsor Lake referenced the book – I think he's referring to

The Democracy Cookbook . I think that's

what he's referring to. There are a whole load of ideas, things around how do we

better engage people in the democratic process. How do we make it easier for

people to run? How do we make it easier for people to vote and encourage them to

vote? How do we try to encourage more diversity in terms of who the candidates

are and who is encouraged to run. There's a whole host of things. These are

things that we need to consider.

Obviously, we're not going to agree on everything; it's a Committee and, again,

it'll be a democracy. But I'm hoping that we will be able to get a lot of

feedback from the public and that we can make a lot of good decisions to change

our democracy for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm

starting to run down on time, so the other thing I just wanted to throw out

there – and again, this was kind of alluded to by my colleague for Windsor Lake

– and that is the fact that right now in this motion we're naming seven people

and we're basically saying to report back in a year with progress. I'm wondering

how this is going to work.

For

example, what about if we start this Committee and in three months from now,

four months from now, we have an election? Does this just die and that's the end

of it? I see nothing here. I see no commitment, nothing written here that would

say that should an election occur between now and then and people are displaced,

there are new Members or whatever, which obviously could happen – I'm not

planning on going anywhere, I hope not, but we all hope that.

Bottom

line is if there's an election in three or four months time and now there are

new people involved and people get defeated or they decide not to run or

whatever happens, what happens to this Committee? What happens to the work of

this Committee? Does it all just fall off the radar until someone brings in a

private Member's motion again in four years from now? I don't know. That's what

could happen. There's nothing here to guarantee that should an election be

called before the work is done, nothing to guarantee that this work will

continue.

So I

don't know, Mr. Speaker, from a procedural point of view, I'm not sure if it

would require an amendment to this, which I don't have, because it sort of just

occurred to me listening to the Member. I don't know if it's something that the

Government House Leader, when she closes off debate, if she is willing to stand

up and make a commitment. Perhaps bring in another motion sometime in the near

future to supplement this to address that issue.

I would

like to see some kind of a firm commitment that should we find ourselves in the

middle of an election in a few months' time and there are different players here

and everything is rearranged and so on, the desks are all moved and whatever,

that this work will carry on.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader, if she speaks now, she will close the debate.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll

begin by thanking all Members who contributed to the discussion here this

afternoon. We had a rather robust discussion in December surrounding this and

previously. So it was interesting to hear some of the discourse here this

afternoon.

I will

say to the Member for Windsor Lake who raised his skepticism, it is unfortunate

that he feels skeptic that this House is now putting together a Select Committee

on Democratic Reform. I would've hoped he would've been enthusiastic about a

Select Committee on Democratic Reform, as they all voted in favour of this mere

months ago, Mr. Speaker.

I will

also say that he raised issue with “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select

Committee on Democratic Reform report its progress to this Honourable House

before the end of the Winter-Spring Sitting of this House, 2021,” Mr. Speaker.

The Committee can decide to report at any time before the end of the

winter-spring sitting. We put it in just to be helpful to this House to make

sure it reports back. I did discuss this with House leadership to make sure they

were in concurrence and they were, so I'm a little surprised that he would not

be in concurrence with that.

I did

note that the Member opposite also said that – it was raised a couple times that

he was skeptical about this process. Mr. Speaker, this is a House of Assembly

process, not a government process. I will remind the Members opposite of this.

I will

say this: We need a spirit of optimism and hope, not only in this House of

Assembly but in this province. I ask Members to provide that hope and optimism

going forward on the Democratic Reform Committee. I think there has been great

work done. Again, I join my colleague in thanking the Justice Department who was

leading this. They've done volumes of work and have advanced work on this very

important issue. It's a complex issue, and I thank the Minister of Justice and

this team for doing that. But it's now out of their hands and into the hands of

the House of Assembly, which is what we all decided, together, in December.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say, once the Committee is now struck, following today's debate,

they will move forward to choose a Chair. The Committee will choose a Chair and

we'll move forward then with deliberations and work.

To my

hon. colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, he talked about having impact on

legislation. I remind him that he does, indeed, have impact on legislation. I

recall very vividly this past fall when we made changes to legislation based on

his recommendations and discussions. So he does have impact and I thank him for

that impact. It was a great recommendation for improvement to legislation.

As we

move forward, working to have more of a committee structure – I had committee

structure when I was a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I speak highly to the

committee structure, I think it's a valuable thing for this House of Assembly

and I support it. We're working to utilizing it even more than we already have

and we already have had legislation go through that.

To my

hon. colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, he raised the issue of compelling

a future Legislature to continue with this work. I don't think anyone in here

can compel a future Legislature. I will say that should something occur, we are

in a minority situation, I recognize that, so if the Members opposite decide by

whatever means and mechanisms to call an election, if they decide to call an

election, they can certainly come back to this House and restrike the Committee.

That is always a possibility. I would hope that future governments – we had

already moved and actioned this item with our own Committee, Mr. Speaker, and

had invited Members opposite to join us on that Committee. Now that it is a

Committee of the House of Assembly, I would suggest that we would have to compel

that future Legislature to do that work.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very positive thing. There is an opportunity under the last

section that the resolution that “any further matters relating to the mandate or

operations of said committee can be brought back to this House for approval.” I

would say that we would likely anticipate to hear of this for the future. I am

merely a conduit of a private Member's resolution to bring this forward today.

I hope

all Members, based on their commitment in December, are supportive of moving

forward with the Democratic Reform Committee but we'll await the vote.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

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.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Again,

I'm a conduit in this House this afternoon.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader ,second reading of a bill,

An Act

To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,

Bill 24, and that the said bill should be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 24 entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm the

conduit again of this legislation through the House of Assembly and I'll give a

few remarks. We have dealt with this, of course, back in the fall of 2019 and

it's now coming forward in its legislation form.

On May 2

of 2018, the House of Assembly unanimously passed a private Member's resolution

directing the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to undertake the

development of a Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.

Following the passage of this resolution, the Privileges and Elections Committee

prepared for work it would undertake, including extensive cross-jurisdictional

research and an analysis of applicable legislative and policy provisions. A

significant portion of the work conducted throughout the summer and fall of 2018

was focused on consultations, as required by the resolution, with Members,

employees and independent external groups.

The

Committee developed a proposed Harassment-Free Workplace Policy applicable to

complaints against Members of the House of Assembly and recommended that it be

adopted by the House. In addition to the proposed policy, the Committee

recommended changes to the principles of the Code of Conduct for MHAs, as well

as the Code of Conduct provisions outlined in the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act .

There were also recommendations for other consequential statutory amendments to

the House of Assembly Act .

While

the final report has already received concurrence in the House of Assembly, the

Privileges and Elections Committee have no ability to introduce a bill in this

House and has requested that the Government House Leader do so on behalf of the

House of Assembly. All public bills must be introduced in the Legislature by the

Executive Branch of government.

The

amendments being proposed to the House of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act are as follows:

One, to change the process for initiating a review under the Code of Conduct by

removing the ability of the Premier to request that the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards give an opinion on a matter respecting the compliance of a

Member with the Code of Conduct and the related requirement for the Commissioner

report the opinion to the Premier and Member concerned.

Two, to

require that Members annually file a declaration with the Clerk of the House of

Assembly to reaffirm their commitment to the Code of Conduct and declare that

they have read and understood the policy.

Three,

to add provisions to protect the confidentiality of the identity of the person

requesting an opinion under the Code of Conduct.

Four, to

provide for consequential amendments to give effect to the Harassment-Free

Workplace Policy applicable to complaints against MHAs. That's

definitions,

separation between the Code and policy, authority of the Citizens'

Representative under the policy, and confidentiality of the complainant and

witnesses.

Five,

notwithstanding the report of a code violation to the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards, if that violation involves a harassment complaint against

a Member, the matter shall be dealt with by the Citizens' Representative.

Six, if

the Citizens' Representative determines that a complaint does not fall within

his or her jurisdiction, the complainant may then request an opinion from the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Seven,

where a matter has been referred to either the Citizens' Representative or the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards under the act or the policy, and that

Officer has issued a report or discontinued an investigation, the decision of

the Officer is final and the matter may not be subsequently referred to the

statutory Officer who has not yet heard it.

Eight,

reports by the Privileges and Elections Committee arising from investigations by

the Citizens' Representative shall be taken up and disposed of by the House

within six months, or a longer time as determined by the House. Recommendations

must be concurred in by the House.

Nine, if

the complainant is the Citizens' Representative, the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards shall have the powers and abilities of the Citizens'

Representative under the policy. This is consistent with the motion to concur

with the final report. The proposed bill would come into effect, if it is passed

in this House of Assembly, on April 1, 2020.

I know

the Privileges and Elections Committee, Mr. Speaker – of which you were Chair at

the time – deliberated long and hard and put a tremendous effort into ensuring

that you considered all the matters at hand. As I indicated earlier, a very

significant cross-jurisdictional scan, major deliberations, put the report

forward to this House, which the House has concurred in. This legislation is

enacting that concurrence.

With

that, I will take my seat.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

First of

all, I'd like to just go through. For clarification purposes, I think it's

important to set out again the brief historical background with respect to this

bill and to place it in context.

When we

go back, first of all, to February 12 of 2018, our leader, the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Crosbie, called for a new workplace harassment policy to be

introduced for the House of Assembly. At that time, he recognized that the

policies in this House needed to be updated and modernized.

Then we

move to May of 2018, the House debated – this was on May 2 – and passed a

private Member's resolution from the PC caucus. We see the private Member's

resolution which, in essence, resolved that the House support the introduction

of the Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free policy. It was similar in principle

to the policy in effect in Nova Scotia's provincial Legislature, where elected

representatives and their staff were held responsible for inappropriate conduct.

As well,

the resolution called for the introduction of this policy to recognize all forms

of harassment including bullying, cyberbullying and intimidation of all forms.

Finally, it resolved to call for the consultation with all Members and employees

of the House and with independent groups who had experience and expertise in

handling harassment complaints.

The

private Member's resolution was then passed without descent. Then in May of

2018, from there we see it go to November of 2018 where that Standing Committee

on Privileges and Elections issued the interim report to the House on this new

policy.

From

there we see it go to April of 2019, where the Privileges and Elections

Committee issued or tabled the final report. Then December 2, 2019, the House

concurred in this final report. It was at that time that I also rose in the

House to speak on this matter.

Just for

clarification purposes, concurring means that the House approved the policy and

it was set to come into effect April 21, 2020. By concurring the House also

approved other recommendations, including the amendments to this act.

Mr.

Speaker, when we look at this particular bill, Bill 24, it does include

amendments to the act that were recommended by the Privileges and Elections

Committee and already concurred in by the House in December. This is simply the

next step in this legislative process, I guess you could say. It's really

nothing new in its form.

As I

pointed out, in December we concurred in the resolution to move this forward

with the amendments to make this policy happen. This bill really, in essence,

includes those amendments. It's the final step in the process. Once we pass it,

hopefully, we will have the policy we have been – and all parties have been –

working on so hard to create.

Getting

to that point, I think I would be remiss if I did not say that it has to be

acknowledged, the work of the Privileges and Elections Committee who presented

this final report. They spent many months of analysis, consultations and

deliberations that were involved.

I think

that is very important to recognize, that the Committee saw the importance of

this work and the importance that the Legislature must recognize that we have to

lead by example in this area. They worked diligently to see that there's a clear

and fair process, that due process is followed and proper procedures are

followed. It gives options for resolution. It protects confidentiality. It

fosters a better work environment. It holds all of us, all elected officials, to

the highest standard.

So I

would submit, Mr. Speaker, we much be diligent to ensure that the House is not a

place where harassment is tolerated but a place where everyone who wants to

serve feels welcome, and that includes women who also wish to run for public

office. I think this is a very important step in ensuring and encouraging women

to do that in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, another couple of points I'd like to emphasize with respect to this

bill and the underlying, I guess, policy which is the foundation. This

Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy – which is the name it is

called – outlines a really comprehensive definition of harassment. Again, it is

an attempt to update the law, to modernize the law with respect to issues of

harassment. I think the most important element of this is it separates the

treatment of harassment from other aspects of the Code of Conduct. I think that

is a really important piece. This is very necessary.

I would

say on that point, we've learned in recent years that concerns about harassment

have really come to the fore. It is now necessary to update the law to reflect

our determination and our commitment to deal seriously with issues of

harassment. By separating out that issue of harassment, this bill introduces new

definitions related to the Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace

Policy. The bill also gives direction for separating harassment issues from the

Code of Conduct so the appropriate legislation can proceed.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to note that harassment investigations will be

conducted by the Citizens' Representative, and I think that's an important point

that we need to mindful of. This bill will give the Citizens' Representative the

authority to act in accordance with the policy. I think that was a really

important element to have and I think that needs to be recognized. It's very

encouraging to see the reforms and the attempts that have been made with respect

to the harassment piece of this policy and this legislation.

Also, I

feel very comfortable, very encouraged about the confidential support mechanisms

that are in place. These mechanisms protect confidentiality. I think that is

something that is vital. That we need to protect the confidentiality of not only

the complainant but witnesses and, as well, the respondents, at least to the

extent possible, to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness.

That is very important and needs to be, certainly, applauded and celebrated.

With

respect as well, I find it very good to see that this bill will assign

jurisdictions for complaint and resolution process to the Office of the

Citizen