PDF Version

May 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 26

The

House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the hon. the Members for the District of Conception Bay East Bell

Island, Placentia West Bellevue, Virginia Waters Pleasantville, Topsail

Paradise, Exploits and Stephenville Port au Port.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to congratulate the graduates of St. Michael's High on Bell Island. This

past Saturday I had the privilege of attending the 2016 prom with 27 graduates,

their parents, guardians, teachers and hundreds from the community who wanted to

celebrate their accomplishments.

The

celebration started with a church service and ended with the grand march and the

safe grad dance. The highlight of the dinner came when the guest speaker

addressed the graduates by video. To the surprise of the graduates, it was their

former teacher Mr. Jamie Wilkinson who has been on medical leave for the past 18

months living in hospital in Toronto while he waits for a heart transplant.

Jamie

spoke of watching the students grow into community volunteers and leaders. He

empowered them to never give up and work through adversity. He ended by sharing

with the graduates that his health had improved to the point that he had now

been added to the list for a heart transplant and his hope is to be back with

the class and meet them in their graduating ceremonies next fall. This was

received by a roaring cheer.

Mr.

Speaker, we congratulate all the graduates and wish Mr. Wilkinson good health.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago in

1966, Premier Smallwood initiated a resettlement plan which saw thousands of

families asked to pack up the belongings to move from isolated coves and

harbours and islands to larger towns, which Smallwood dubbed as growth centres.

Placentia Bay served as a focal point of resettlement, seeing many of the

islands pack up and move to areas such as Placentia, Marystown or Arnold's Cove.

In fact, my own father and his family sold their home in Western Cove on Bar

Haven Island, floated it across the bay to Southern Harbour and moved themselves

to Long Harbour to gain work at the ERCO plant, where my grandparents built a

home which still stands today.

The Town

of Arnold's Cove, a small community of about 100 at the time, quickly grew to

over 1,200 as new settlers arrived. This year, they have endeavoured to

commemorate the 50th anniversary of resettlement with a suite of activities that

began in January and will continue on through this year.

congratulate the town and organizators on taking the initiative and thank them

for enabling many of us this year to take stock of where we were and where we

have come.

I ask

the public and indeed Members of this House to take the time to visit

www.resettlementnl.ca to learn more about their plans and activates and to participate in the

re-living of these moments of our history.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate an exceptional student at St. Paul's

Junior High. Mahiba Khan, a grade eight French immersion student, has been

making waves in recent months.

well-rounded student, she is a regular feature on the principal's academic list.

She is also an active member of the school leadership team and she volunteers

her time with the Do It Crew that looks after the Kids East Smart program.

Mahiba

represented St. Paul's at the regional Heritage Fair and she won the prestigious

Ambassador Program Award. For this award, she will be travelling to France and

Belgium at the end of the school year, and will be representing Newfoundland and

Labrador at the First World War battlefields.

She is

an excellent photographer, having won numerous Skills Canada awards for her

photographic ability. She is also an NXT and underwater robotics team member.

Her teachers describe her as a wonderfully friendly and outgoing person.

I ask

all Members in this hon. House to join me in recognizing the academic and

extracurricular success of Mahiba Khan.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize the members of the Paradise Adventure 50+ Group. Since its

inception in 1987, this group has been providing quality opportunities to its

members and, as a result, has grown to become a very well operated and organized

and physically active group of 156 members.

This

active group is primarily comprised of residents from the Town of Paradise, but

also residents from Conception Bay South, the City of Mount Pearl and other

areas. On a weekly basis, they participate in various regular activities such as

dancing, card games, shuffle board, dart tournaments and once a month, on a

Saturday night, they enjoy a social, which I've had the honour of attending many

times.

The

Paradise Adventure 50+ Group is a great example of a group that is proactive,

fostering both active, healthy lifestyles and close friendships amongst its

participants.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Paradise Adventure

50+ Group and wish them continue success in all of their efforts.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize World Pulmonary Hypertension Day, which

took place on May 5. Eighty organizations around the world participated to raise

awareness of this often misdiagnosed disease and offered support and celebration

for those living with PH.

As I

speak today, a constituent of the Minister of Transportation and Works, Wendy

King, along with her husband Steve and their seven-year-old son Kenneth, are

presently in Toronto, where Wendy is waiting for a double lung transplant.

behalf of the minister and all hon. Members of this House, I would like to wish

Wendy and her family best wishes for a successful recovery. None of this, Mr.

Speaker, would be possible if it weren't for the organ donation program.

encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to consider becoming an organ

donor. I ask all Members to join with me in wishing Wendy and her family all the

very best.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to acknowledge 18-year-old Jesse Renouf of Stephenville. Although Jesse

has challenges with autism, he's an extremely talented musician who plays the

piano, various percussion instruments, including the drums, and also sings.

Further,

he is an exceptional athlete who competes in track and field and swimming with

the Special Olympics. Jesse graduated from Stephenville High last year with

honours and a 90 per cent average in math.

He is

currently enrolled in the College of the North Atlantic's Film and Video

Production program in Stephenville. During the week of April 18, Jesse competed

in the 41st Stephenville Rotary Music Festival, both in the piano and voice

categories. At the closing gala, which highlighted the stars of the festival on

April 23, Jesse delivered a stunning performance of composer Franz Schubert's

Impromptu on the piano.

This

performance ultimately led the adjudicators to award Jesse the coveted Rose Bowl

as the top performer in this year's festival. As a result, Jesse will be

competing here in St. John's next weekend at the Provincial Rotary Music

Festival.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Jesse for his Rose Bowl victory, and

wish him the best of luck next weekend.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

For Honour 100 today we have

the Member for the District of Humber Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

I would now read into the

record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World

War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve or

the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a moment of

silence.

Lest we

forget: Albert Moore, Eric Moore, James E. Moore, John Moore, Thomas Moore,

Albert Moores, John Moores, Samuel J. Moores, Hugh J. Moran, Walter W. Morey,

Frederick Morgan, John Thomas Morgan, Robert Stanley Morgan, William Morgan,

William Morgan, Edward A. Morris, Frank Morris, Harold Morris, James R. Morris,

Kenneth Morris, Robert Morris, Walter Morris, William Morris, John Thomas

Morrissey, Joseph Morton, George Mosher, Daniel J. Moss, Albert Edgar Moulton,

Herbert Moulton, John Moulton, Allan Moyes, Bennett Mudford, George Mugford,

Jacob Mugford, Luke Mugford, Nathan Mugford, Gordon Mullings, Harry Mullins,

Edward Joseph Murphy, Joachim Murphy.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to report on successful participation in the Offshore Technology

Conference held last week in Houston. One hundred representatives from the

province attended from supply and service companies, industry associations,

offshore operators and government.

From

2013 to 2015, employment in the province averaged in excess of 10,000 persons

per year for Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and Hebron. Additionally, those

projects have seen expenditures of close to $9 billion in this province over the

same period.

During

the week, I presented to delegates and focused on the opportunities in offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador. Seismic data has validated the incredible

prospectivity offshore with over 350 leads and prospects. Working with the

represented companies, meeting with operators, discussing the benefits of doing

business in Newfoundland and Labrador made for a productive week

Companies also represented and reported a successful week: Oceanic Consulting

Corporation met with clients from the United States, Europe and Australia and

gained new business opportunities; Pro-Dive Marine Services indicated that

companies are eager to meet as everyone is looking for work in this market;

Kvaerner demonstrated their business concepts and met with existing and

potential clients, business partners and suppliers; Virtual Marine Technology

met with global drilling contractors and have initiated commercial discussions

with at least two regarding the potential use of the company's lifeboat

simulators; and GRi Simulations Inc. announced a business partnership with

Underwater Group of Brazil.

We will

continue to work hard to encourage growth, development and opportunities in the

oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance of her statement. Indeed, it is very

optimistic to see over 100 representatives from our Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador attending the oil and gas show. I'm confident that the operators,

companies and industry members were well represented at the show.

The oil

and gas industry, as we know, is a very (inaudible) today our economy and

certainly holds great opportunity for the future. I know some of these companies

that the minister mentioned based on the suite of programs as I was Minister

of IBRD in our administration. We worked with many of these companies to grow

their opportunities, to help them build their technology and to be successful,

not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but around the world and money well

spent.

I am

also encouraged by the minister's reference to seismic data. We, as

administrators, had significant investment through Nalcor in seismic data for

several years, and sparked tremendous interest in the industry and bodes well

for future growth.

We look

forward to greater opportunities, greater success and dividends to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador through this industry.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I am glad to see the

province is still active in the global oil industry, and I'm also pleased to see

government helping local companies take advantage of international trade shows

to sell their services on the global scene, but I remind the minister and her

colleagues that we cannot continue to depend solely on the oil industry for our

economic salvation.

I ask

them, Mr. Speaker, where is the economic diversification they have promised?

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last month, harvesters from our province headed out to sea, as they

have done for many years, to participate in the annual seal harvest. The sealing

industry provides significant economic support to many families throughout the

province, particularly in coastal communities.

This

year, over 66,000 seals have been harvested to date, with a landed value of over

$2.3 million almost double last year's harvest. The purchase of seals from the

2016 harvest was conducted by the private sector, without the need for public

sector financial assistance.

The

Canadian seal harvest is one of the best managed harvests of animals anywhere in

the world. The Canadian seal harvest is humane, sustainable and economically

important.

The

provincial government has a history of partnering with industry to support

international market efforts, research and development projects in support of

new products, and sealer training seminars. On May 17, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

that I will be attending Seal Day on the Hill where I will meet with key

industry players and other relevant jurisdictions to demonstrate our

government's support of the sealing industry and its growth potential,

particularly as we work to diversify the economy.

The

sealing industry is economically viable to our province and we will continue to

work with stakeholders in the federal government to ensure its viability. We are

unwavering in our commitment to achieving long-term sustainability and growth,

and the investments we have made here in the seafood industry help put this

province in a better position.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'd like to thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, the sealing industry is very important to the people of our province.

Not only is it part of our colourful history and heritage, but it's also an

economic generator for many parts of our province.

The

sealing industry supports many people, not only the harvesters, but crafts. I'm

so proud to see so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wearing seal products.

It's really a great sign and it's a great support to our industry.

Mr.

Speaker, I go back to, my father was a sealer and was so proud to go to the ice.

I went to a 90th birthday just a little while ago and the gentleman, Mr. Herb

Hudson, the one thing he wanted to tell me was and he was so proud of it too

that he went to the seal hunt with my dad. It's a part of our history. It's a

part of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it's very important

that we all, all Members of this House support our sealing industry because it's

who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm happy to see our

sealing industry doing so well and that the province's financial assistance to

the industry is showing results. The $2.3 million earned by the industry may not

be a big number by industry standards, but it is essential extra income to the

many people in our small rural communities who make their living from the sea

an essential, not to forget there, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential to people

like me who also love seal flipper.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, just this morning more protests on the Liberal budget. Today,

parents and children held peaceful protests at Beach Cove Elementary, in King's

Cove, at Vanier, at Mary Queen of Peace, and at stake here is a solid education

foundation for our children.

Liberal

reductions include reductions to intensive core French, reductions of reading

time, gym and music, just to name a few of the many impacts that parents are

starting to understand.

I ask

the Premier: Are you listening to parents and what is your response to them?

Will you put kids before cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, we are listening

to parents and we also realize that because of the fiscal mess the previous

administration created, we're spending more on debt servicing than we are on

education, the whole education budget at present, so we've had to make some

difficult decisions.

As I

said when this question was asked by the Official Opposition here in the House

of Assembly the week before, intensive core French is an optional program that

we can offer when we have extra teaching units, and we frankly don't have any

extra because of the fiscal mess that we're in.

Combined

grades are a teaching model that is utilized from downtown Vancouver, to

downtown Toronto, to the rest of the country. It's nothing new. It's a proven

teaching method and it does work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, just as I expected, but I'll ask the Premier again because the Premier,

I'm sure, must understand that the concerns being expressed by the parents of

this province are falling on the deaf ears of your minister who says he's

listening but he's not acting. He's not taking their concerns into consideration

in the decisions that he is making. Parents are being quite clear on many areas,

including combined classrooms, which will lead to children in different grades

sharing a teacher a reduced number of teachers and classrooms in September.

I ask

the Premier: Will you stand in your place and tell the people of the province

are you comfortable with the choices being made? Are you comfortable with the

choices to cut teachers, to combine classrooms and to reduce the quality of

education that is going to be received by the children of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a

follow-up to the minister's response to the question that was asked by the

former premier, now the Leader of the Opposition in our province, I told a story

last night at a meeting that I was to about picturing a five-year-old getting on

the school bus for the first time in that person's life. By the time that

five-year-old would have gotten to grade four, based on the actions or the

inactions of the previous administration, by the time that child reached grade

four the debt that that person, that individual, that five-year-old would be

expected to carry would have been doubled as a result of the mismanagement, the

poor planning of the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

It is a mess that you left

our children in. It is a mess that you left this administration to clean up. You

should be ashamed that you're bringing up these questions about the mess that

you've left this province in today, I'd say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I've asked on several

occasions for order and decorum in the House. I point out to the Member for Cape

St. Francis today we will not tolerate any interruptions during Question Period.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hear

you being interrupted by Members opposite there.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier stood in his place and he's talking about education that's

so valuable and the importance of education. We're being told that schools and

teachers have been put in a very challenging situation. They're talking to us

because the fears and the concerns they have are falling on the deaf ears of the

minister.

They're

talking to us and they're saying they will not be prepared in September. They

will not have the resources in September. They will not the proper training to

deal with what's coming in September as a result of the choices made by this

government.

I ask

the Premier: Where is your voice; where is your focus on quality of education?

Instead of responding to the minister, why don't you respond to parents of the

province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

former premier just reminded me of a situation, when you think about responding

or talking or evening listening to people in the province. Back in September

when he was asked to give a fiscal update of our province, he refused to do so.

I find

it intriguing that today he sits there and talks about his listening skills,

talking to people. Yet, just a few short months ago, he refused to tell the

people in this province the mess that he was actually trying to manage his way

through.

I ask

the former premier: Why is it that you did not share this information and assume

the responsibility, which ultimately is squarely in your lap to the parents that

you are now talking to? Why aren't you accepting some of the responsibility, at

least, for the problem that exists in our province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

A typical response, Mr.

Speaker, from the Premier of our province who likes to spin things around. He

thinks he's still in an election campaign; he's going to play rhetoric.

When

we're asking questions about the education of our students, he wants to play

politics with it; no different when he says he doesn't know where the budget was

last year, what was happening. If he couldn't follow the price of oil, he's

either incompetent or he's playing politics, Mr. Speaker; it's as simple as

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, we're being told

that the proposed pay increases for provincial court judges is a done deal. The

decision has been made.

I ask

the Premier: Can you be clear with the people of the province and confirm that

the government has agreed to a $32,000 pay increase for judges and that's why

you've budgeted the $1.2 million? Premier, can you clarify that for us and

answer that question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said on

multiple occasions in this House, there is absolutely no pay raise for these

judges right now. That's a matter that actually has to be voted on in this House

by everybody in this House, including the Member opposite, who proposed a raise

for the judges less than one year ago.

again, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that was proposed by an independent

tribunal based on information provided by the previous government, and I look

forward to debating that motion when it's placed here in this House prior to

June 1.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member knows quite well there was a 5 per cent increase put in in anticipation

of the report coming out. There certainly wasn't a raise provided, or the deal

was done and committed to, as we're hearing the Member opposite has already

committed to.

Now, the

Minister of Justice got up and answered the question

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

The minister got up and

answered the question when I asked the Premier. That's the same minister who

refused to answer the question here in the House when I asked him if it's been

budgeted, and five minutes later he goes out to the media and he tells them it

was budgeted, Mr. Speaker. That's what he's done he told us there was no

decision made, and we're hearing the decision is made.

Premier: Can you set the record straight; can you tell us what is the status on

this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

as the former premier should know, this is a matter that is again handled by an

independent tribunal, presented to the Minister of Justice, a proposal or

resolution is put on the floor of the House of Assembly and it's voted on by all

Members of the House.

I don't

know how many times we have to say that but, again, if the Member wants to

continue asking, I'll continue saying it. Anything saying that the decision has

already been made is absolutely false. I cannot make it any clearer to the

Member opposite.

He can

ask the question again, and the answer stays the same. This is a matter that's

voted on by all Members.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the

recommendation comes from the hon. Member opposite who just stood in his place.

The recommendation comes from him, and we're hearing he's already made his

decision on it.

We're

also hearing that

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

also hearing that the government opposite is considering rolling back the wages

for teachers and nurses in this province. We're hearing that; we're hearing as

much as 12 per cent rollbacks for nurses and teachers in our province.

So I'm

going to ask the Premier: Will he stand in his place today and finally give a

straight answer, is this something government is considering doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador intends to clearly bargain in good faith with our

valuable public sector unions and the people that they represent. We will not

bargain in public, nor will we the rumours that the Member opposite is

perpetuating, quite frankly, I find insulting and scary for those Members. I

think that is totally in absence of an understanding of the true collective

bargaining process that needs to happen in our province. We will bargain in good

faith at the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are lots of reasons why public servants are nervous today. I'm asking questions

based on what we're hearing in the Opposition office because public servants and

the people of the province can't get a straight answer from their own employer

or from the people who are leading the province. So they are calling us and

asking us to ask these questions on their behalf.

I will

ask the Premier again: Will you have the courage to stand in your own place

instead of having one of your ministers' answer and tell the public servants,

tell teachers, tell nurses, what's in their future during your collective

bargaining?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

have no problem standing in my place and supporting the comments of the minister

and other ministers that we said. It seems to me that unless we just come out

and say what the former premier wants to say, he's never going to be satisfied.

The

Minister of Justice just mentioned to him about a process, about the judge's

tribunal that will be debated on a resolution here in the House of Assembly.

He's not satisfied with that answer. He wants to hear answers that will put

people in fear in this province. Unless he gets those answers if they should

be fearful of anything, it's the inactions of your government back over the last

10 and 12 years. That's what's creating the fear in people in our province.

We will

negotiate in good faith with all our labour leaders, with all our unions. They

deserve that. They supply critical services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

and we look forward to having that negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

There it is again, Mr.

Speaker, the broken record.

The

Premier quite well knows that choices that's what budgets are about, it's

about choices that he makes and what his government makes. It is not about

choices of the past. It's about him doing what's right for the people of the

province. They seem to have forgotten who they are there to serve, Mr. Speaker.

The people of the province, they seem to have forgotten that.

We know,

Mr. Speaker, that recently, just before Easter the Premier rose and he talked

about, why do you raise a flag outside? Well, we said, there's no policy. Now

today we hear there is a policy, Mr. Speaker. It is a continued trend from this

government. They say one thing, we hear something else. They said there was no

policy. We now hear there is clear policy. Today he said, well, it was a

decision that we made. We know they change their position all the time.

I ask

the Premier: Why did you tell the people of the province when you were directed

by your own Director of Protocol who said here's the policy, you were given a

copy of the policy, then why did you misdirect the people of the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, to be quite

honest with you, it is that is shameful what the former premier is talking

about. It was clear, draft policy. He knows this. Members opposite knew this.

They established a draft policy in 2015, but he failed to put it into clear

policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

So what we've done, I've

reached out to all parties. By the way, he refused to come to a meeting, didn't

show up. The Member of the Third Party did show up. He couldn't send a Member to

the meeting that we had with the Speaker.

It's now

in the hands of the Speaker to put clear policy regarding, not only the flying

of the flag in our province, but also the lighting of the Confederation

Building. It should not be political. He will never be satisfied unless he makes

it political.

I ask

him: Why did you refuse to send someone to the meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

the Premier misspeaks. That comes from his office quite often that comes from

his office. We've had conversations on this matter. We've articulated our

position on the matter. As a matter of fact, the Premier's office today has said

there's an all-party committee in place.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't remember coming to the House and establishing an all-party

committee. There is no all-party committee. We can't listen to anything that

comes out of the mouths of the Members opposite because it's always spin. It's

smoke and mirrors and spin, that's all that comes out.

Premier,

the Director of Protocol told you there's a clear policy in place. The Director

of Protocol wrote you and said it cannot be religious, but you said there was no

policy and you went ahead and raised the flag.

Tell the

people why you went against your own policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to

clarify, there was only a draft policy in place. The former premier knows that.

Members opposite know that. We provided the link to the draft policy that they

sat on for quite a few months. It was draft policy. If he spoke to the Director

of Protocol, he would also say that it was a draft policy that he was quoting.

Indeed,

it was draft policy. We will work with the Speaker's Office to put clear

policies in place. Currently, we have only just draft policies in place. We will

also add the lighting to the Confederation Building, also to the flag that will

fly at Confederation Building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development

have both stated that residents of rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be

within 30 minutes of a library.

I ask

the minister: Once libraries are eliminated, how many people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador will not be within 30 minutes of a library?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, as we've said a

number of times, the public libraries board has decided to move to a regional

model to better reflect our ability to support public libraries and the needs of

the province and increasing e-books. I think year over year there's about a 25

per cent increase.

I think

what was said was that with the new model approximately 85 per cent of the

people in the province will be within 30 minutes distance of one of the regional

libraries. I guess if you subtract that from 100, then 15 per cent of the people

from the province will not be within 30 minutes. That's why there are more

monies being invested into e-books and other formats that people can access text

in different ways, as they do now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

It's a sad day for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Not much support from this government

for them.

Jenny

Wright, the Executive Director of the St. John's Status of Women Council, states

that women make up the majority of the province's senior and low-income

population. As a result, women will be disproportionally hit by this budget.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for the province's Women's Policy Office: Was there a

gender lens applied to the development of your budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, as we worked through the budget the important women's lens, gender

lens was certainly used. The most practical example of that would manifest

itself in the introduction of the Newfoundland Income Supplement which was

specifically initiated in discussions with Cabinet and colleagues because of the

high level of poverty we have for senior women in our province.

I might

add, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that our province has sadly, after years

and years and years of mismanagement the highest level of poverty amongst

senior women of any province in Canada. That's why the Newfoundland Income

Supplement was introduced to help offset some of the impacts of this budget, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

As a result of this budget,

we're soon to see the highest out-migration and unemployment we've ever seen,

Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in a speech in Corner Brook

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in a speech in Corner Brook, the Premier again stated that his

government is protecting the vulnerable in society including seniors and

low-income earners. However, anti-poverty advocate, Dan Meades, has stated that

the Liberal budget hurts people in poverty.

I ask

the Premier: Who is telling the truth? Is the expert confused and yet another

person who you suggest does not under the Liberal budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I

want to address the earlier comments about out-migration and unemployment rates

in our province.

I will

tell you, as a result of the actions or inactions of the government that she was

a part of is what led to the decisions that had to be made. I hope she's not

trying to distance herself from the mess that has been created.

When it

comes to working with low-income people, working with seniors in our province,

working with people with disabilities, there are a number of programs in this

budget. As an example, the $76.4 million Newfoundland and Labrador low-income

supplement program that is there to help mitigate many of the measures in this

budget, as well as affordable housing projects.

We are

working with our federal colleagues and we have been able to leverage money with

the federal relationship, as well as with the private sector, to put in place

over 400 new affordable housing units in our province as a result of this

budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, of the 54

library closures the Liberals will close, those located on islands such as Bell

Island, Fogo Island and Gaultois mean that residents will have to take a ferry

to access a library.

I ask

the minister: What is the plan for residents located on islands to gain access

to library services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

mentioned yesterday in the House of Assembly, the ones that are located in the

municipal buildings, I would be reaching out to the municipalities over the next

year and seeing how we could work together to keep all libraries open in the

municipal buildings.

There is

many times, Mr. Speaker, that municipalities have already reached out to me and

said: What can we do to help out with this situation? As I said before, there

will be a year's grace, and we will be working with all municipalities to try to

keep all libraries open that are in municipal buildings now.

I take

it upon myself very seriously to work with all municipalities to ensure the

services are there because a lot of municipalities want to help, they are

reaching out to help, and I'm willing to help any way I can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, that's different

than what Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador are saying. When asked if

municipalities were consulted, the CEO of MNL said, I quote, when you have a

choice to take it or lose it, I'm not sure if I'd call that consultation.

So I ask

the minister: Is that the consultations you are talking about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm not sure if the Member is

speaking about the libraries. If he's talking about the libraries, I could state

categorically in this House I've never spoken to Craig Pollett on libraries in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I challenge, Mr. Speaker if I ever said something

which I don't feel is correct, or if I feel I made a mistake, I will stand and

apologize.

I would

say to the Member if I'm saying anything incorrect here that I spoke to Craig

Pollett and said take it or leave it, it's absolutely categorically false. I

challenge the Member if you can prove anything different I will stand in this

House and apologize. If you can't, I ask that you stand and apologize for saying

things which I did not say, which I was not a part of. I have yet to speak to

Craig Pollett on closures of libraries in municipalities, ever.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, the Bonavista Area Chamber of Commerce has joined the long list of

rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities and organizations who feel cheated

by the Liberal government.

I ask

the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: When his AES office saw over 400

clients per month, how will closing the Bonavista AES office not affect the

success of residents on the Bonavista Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, as communities

and as individuals adopt on the income support program they are telling us that

they are using more and more telephone services to access their services that

they require. In fact, new technologies were brought in to be able to afford an

even richer and better experience in terms of accessing the programs and

services that they need.

And, in

fact, I'll just read out a press release that was issued: In terms of improved

technology which now enables clients to access the income support program from

their own homes by telephone, this is a great advantage.

Mr.

Speaker, this press release was issued in 2004, when the previous administration

closed 20 AES offices and reduced the complement of staff on Bell Island from

six to two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal

attack on rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues, not only has the economy

been hit in these areas, health care is being impacted too. In Bonavista for

instance, hospital X-ray services are now being reduced. The Bonavista Area

Chamber of Commerce responded to the budget by saying the short-sightedness of

the Liberal government's attempt to cut costs is effectively engineering a

piece-by-piece economic demise of our region.

I ask

the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development: When he

addressed the Chamber of Commerce only a few weeks ago, did he explain why the

people of the Bonavista region are being unfairly targeted by the Liberal

government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise to address the health-related concerns of the Member opposite.

Decisions to change models of service are taken based on a variety of factors:

utilization, time of utilization, workload alternatives and travel. I'm advised

by Eastern Health that there will be minimal, if any, impact from the changes to

the hospital in Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, at

the launch of Innovation Week the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and

Rural Development once again mentioned the red book commitment to develop a new

innovation strategy, which could be a good thing.

Can the

minister comment on when exactly this strategy will be developed and released?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the Member opposite mentioned my attendance at the launch of Innovation Week at

Common Ground, which is a site that was started by entrepreneurs that has ended

up creating 50 jobs. We have a phenomenal ecosystem right here in Newfoundland

and Labrador, with tremendous events and opportunities to look at innovation.

NATI

today had a Knowledge Summit and we, as a government, the Premier here, have

directed my department to look at resetting the innovation agenda when it comes

to the Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

We're

very proud to engage and to have discussion around all of the opportunities that

we have in innovation. We have a tremendous amount of companies here that are

ambitious, that are doing deals. The Minister of Natural Resources mentioned GRI

simulations and I am quite proud of what we are going to do for innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Close to

$40 million has been taken out of the regional health authorities budgets. The

Minister of Health and Community Services told us in Estimates today that he

directed the health authorities to look at all front-line programs in health

care, not just efficiencies in operations, as places where potential cutting.

The Premier meant it when he said everything was on the table.

I ask

the Premier: Why did government put regional health authorities under the

pressure of targeting front-line health services for cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before I

recognize the Minister of Health and Community Services, I am asking the Member

for Bonavista to please respect the Member who has been recognized to speak.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

This

budget presented some significant challenges, given the fiscal constraints in

which we find ourselves. The direction and discussion between the department and

the health authorities was to examine programs that were of documented benefit

in terms of outcomes and also to examine those areas where changes in

utilization and improved models of service could actually better deliver

services at lower costs.

The

Member opposite references those savings that have been achieved by just that

process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

A really

fancy way of not admitting that cuts have been made.

This

morning the minister also explained cuts to the provincial drug and dental plans

by saying we have to live within our means. The new benefit for seniors is not

going to cover the budget burden placed on their shoulders.

I ask

the Premier: Is this government really going to tell seniors whose dental plan

was cut, who cannot afford to pay for vital over-the-counter medications while

also feeding themselves that they'll just have to live within these means?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think

it's an unreasonable suggestion to the Member opposite, either in Estimates or

in this House, that a province live within its means when you have, essentially,

a debt load payment each year which is equivalent to one-third of the total

Health budget for this province.

cannot afford the utopia that she would have us afford. Realism has to enter the

calculation sometimes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've

already asked the Member for Cape St. Francis I don't want to be embarrassing

Members by naming them, but this is the second time today.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Is the

Minister of Health and the Premier telling the seniors that there wasn't one

place in that budget of $8.4 billion that they couldn't find money to let them

still be able to access these services? I can't believe it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

recognize there are challenges for seniors, particularly those on lower incomes.

The policies put in place are measures to mitigate against those, and you've

heard my colleague from the Department of Finance.

The

programs that we are supplying through NLPDP and through the department directly

are on a par with every other jurisdiction in Canada. As far as the dental plan

is concerned, we're better than three and identical with five. Really and

honestly, I think this is the best situation we can find ourselves, given the

mess we were left to deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I visited a

76-year-old woman in my district yesterday who has such a bad infected foot

because of her diabetes. She can't afford the medication that's been prescribed

to her. It's over the counter. I wonder is that utopia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

How much will it cost the

province if she has to have an amputation? Maybe the minister would know that.

Mr.

Speaker, people are calling our office, sending us emails, asking when the vote

for the budget will be.

I ask

the Premier: In the interest of openness and transparency, will he level with

the people of the province and commit to giving them advance notice of when he

will call the budget vote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly happy to stand here and answer that question. As the Member opposite

would know and in fact we've been providing a very sufficient amount of notice

to everybody in this House on any business that we carry on in this House. In

fact, when it comes to budget we've moved around Estimates meetings to make sure

that we can accommodate the schedules of all individuals.

The fact

is we are not going to have the vote this week. We have budget debate left to

happen and we have a Concurrence debate left to happen. I am sure that when the

Members opposite are advised as to when the vote will be, they will certainly

have an opportunity to let everybody know.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

report back to the House the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Deputy Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The Social Services Committee

have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that

they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the Department of Child,

Youth and Family Services; the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development; Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Health and Community

Services; the Department of Justice and Public Safety; the Department of

Municipal Affairs; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Labour

Relations Agency; and the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social

Development.

I'll

just mention for the record, Mr. Speaker, the Committee Members on the Social

Services Committee: myself as the Chairperson; the MHA for Topsail Paradise;

the MHA for Burin Grand Bank; the MHA for Mount Pearl Southlands; the MHA

for Harbour Main; the MHA for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; the MHA for St.

George's Humber; and the MHA for St. John's Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, over the last couple of years as a critic in various departments in

Opposition, I had the opportunity to sit on that side and to ask questions and

get familiar with the Estimates process. It was my first time this year on the

government side. I was a privilege to chair the committee, but I can't tell you

that I'm not glad they're done. Eight departments, it took a lot of time, a

minimum of three hours for each of those meetings.

I want

to thank everyone, Mr. Speaker, who was involved in the process. I want to thank

the Committee for the valuable work. I want to thank the departments; the

ministers were very co-operative. They have a minimum of three hours. And

Justice and Public Safety, I'll single out in particular, we went well into the

night on Justice and Public Safety.

I also

want to thank the Broadcast Centre downstairs. While we can't see them, they're

always there and they're doing their work and we appreciate the valuable work

that they do to record this information and keep it in time immemorial.

Mr.

Speaker, for people who might be watching and might be wondering what Estimates

is I'll just speak to that for a couple of minutes. After the budget by whatever

government of the day is passed, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition and the Third Party

in the interest of openness and transparency of the taxpayers' dollars

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. DEMPSTER:

of Newfoundland and

Labrador we come into the Chamber, the minister and their senior officials and

the Opposition and Third Party go line by line and ask questions, especially

sometimes when there are different amounts budgeted one year and it changed and

they ask for clarification, why there is a difference.

Estimates are very important process that takes place in this Chamber. It's been

a very busy two or three weeks for everyone involved. With the House open in the

springtime in the afternoon, Estimates are usually in the morning from 9 to 12,

or we sit in the evening from 6 to 9.

I want

to thank everyone for their co-operation this year.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Tabling of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, during debate I committed to have answers back to the Member for St.

John's Centre and the Leader of the Opposition about the merit points and about

the school zone, the speed limit. Today, I'm heading out to CBS, but I'll commit

that I will have the information back tomorrow. I just want to let you know that

I committed to have it back to today, but I'm going out the door to CBS and I

will have the information for both Members tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further answers to questions?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher

tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS

surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as currently

demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other

countries; and

WHEREAS

government states in 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to stand and present on behalf of the people in

province, people from the West Coast I notice, people from the Southwest Coast,

people from St. John's and I think people from CBS as well. I see Pool's Cove

Mr.

Speaker, people from all over the province are so concerned about this levy.

I've had so many emails about it, so many people presenting their concerns and I

have an extremely well-written, full two-page letter from a professor from the

university who talks about many things, but also talks about the levy, which he

says is fair to characterize as a taxation for the privilege of living in the

province. The aim of the levy is to essentially pilfer dollars from residents

for simply living in the province. I find it very interesting that he shows the

contrast between what lower income people would pay and what higher income

people would pay.

He says

it would mean that low-income families will be paying at least 3.3 times more in

levies than wealthier citizens of the province. Considering that unemployment is

high and Newfoundland already has its fair share of low-income earners, it would

seem like the Liberals are attempting to balance the books on the backs of the

poor while protecting higher income earners.

He goes

on to use stronger language, Mr. Speaker. It is unconscionable to introduce this

grotesque tax which seems to unfairly target a more marginalized group, the

working poor. Undoubtedly, the levy will increase the divide between upper and

lower classes and can thus be considered a dubious tactic utilized to wage class

warfare in the province very strong language from a very educated person.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 decreased the amount of funding available for health care services;

and

WHEREAS

as a result of Budget 2016, Eastern Health has reduced routine breast cancer

screening in women aged 40 to 49; and

WHEREAS

early detection of cancer results in the best prognosis possible;

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

of Assembly to urge government to direct Eastern Health to reverse its decision

and to ensure that the population-based breast screening program is accessible

to women aged 40 to 49.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've brought this petition to the floor of the House and will continue

to bring this petition to the floor of the House until we see a reversal of this

decision, not just at Eastern Health but at all the health boards across the

entire province because every single life matters. It astounds me.

There

was a very strong advocacy and lobby movement for breast cancer screening by

Members opposite when they sat in Opposition. One of their former colleagues, a

lady I respect very well, who is an MP now in Ottawa, actually lobbied this

House quite hard and delivered petition after petition after petition to see

breast cancer screening take place. We certainly have great respect and

admiration for Yvonne Jones, and we will continue the fight to get breast cancer

screening back in our province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Wednesday and

Private Members' Day, I call on the Member for Labrador West to present his

motion.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains:

WHEREAS

Wabush Mines pensioners have experienced a reduction in pension benefits of 25

per cent for the non-unionized pension plan members and 21 per cent for the

unionized pension plan members; and

WHEREAS

those reductions have happened because of Cliffs Natural Resources entering

bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and

given relief and contributions to the pension plans resulting in a significant

unfunded liability in the plans; and

WHEREAS

many pension plans across Canada are experiencing significant unfunded

liabilities and could meet the same fate as the Wabush pension plans;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

supports the efforts of federal Members of Parliament, led by the MP for

Labrador, in seeking amendments to CCAA to ensure pensioners are given priority

on the secured creditors' list during the bankruptcy protection process.

Mr.

Speaker, as we all know, the people of Wabush were dealt a significant blow back

a couple of years ago when Wabush Mines shut down. Little did they know two

years later that they would see their pension plans reduced by 25 per cent and

21 per cent.

Before I

go there, I guess I need to probably give a little explanation of what the

Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act really is. I won't use all those words any

more today. I will refer to it simply as CCAA.

It is a

Federal Act that allows financially troubled corporations the opportunity to

restructure their affairs. By allowing the company to restructure its financial

affairs, through a formal Plan of Arrangement, the CCAA presents an opportunity

for the company to avoid bankruptcy and allows the creditors to receive some

form of payment for amounts owing to them by the company.

The

CCAA is restricted to larger corporations, as a corporation must have amounts

owing to creditors in excess of $5 million to be eligible to use the Act.

The

process begins in the Court system when the company applies to the Court for

protection under the CCAA. The Court will issue an Order giving the company 30

days of protection (often referred to as the Stay) from its creditors to allow

for the preparation of the Plan of Arrangement. The Court can extend the Stay

against the creditors upon further application to the Court by the company.

There is no time limit on how long the Stay can be extended. as we found out

through this process During the Stay period, the company will often continue

operating, although it may commence restructuring activities at any time.

A Monitor is an independent third party who is appointed

by the Court to monitor the company's ongoing operations and assist with the

filing and voting on the Plan of Arrangement. The Monitor's duties include

monitoring the business, reporting to the Court on any major events that might

impact the viability of the company, assisting the company in the preparation of

the Plan of Arrangement, notifying the creditors (and shareholders) of any

meetings and tabulating the votes at these meetings.

The Plan of Arrangement is the proposal that the company

is presenting to its creditors on how it intends to deal with debt it owes at

the time of the initial filing with the Court.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, with Wabush Mines that's exactly

what happened. As you know, Wabush Mines was owned by Cliffs Natural Resources.

It is still owned by Cliffs Natural Resources today, who also happens to be the

owner of Bloom Lake. We all know that Bloom Lake, right now, has gone through a

successful sale so that leaves Wabush Mines still in the same position as it was

before.

On May 20, 2015, a little more than a year after it

actually shut down in February 2014 Wabush Mines, Wabush Iron Ore Company,

Wabush Resources Inc., Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway, which are

all subsidiaries of Cleveland Cliffs, filed for bankruptcy protection under the

CCAA.

Pursuant to the Wabush initial order, FTI Consulting Canada

Inc. has been appointed as the monitor. The Wabush initial order also provides

for a stay of all proceedings against the Wabush CCAA parties for an initial

30-day period until June 19, 2015, subject to further extensions by the court.

It's normally referred to as the Wabush stay. The Wabush stay has since been

extended several times by the court and is now in effect until September 30,

That's where we find ourselves today. It is now May 2016,

and the company is still in bankruptcy protection. As you know, several things

have happened over the last two years that have affected the lives of many

people in Wabush.

The purpose of our PMR today, I guess, is to I'm going to

get to that avoid and try to avoid this from happening in the future. Once the

stay went into place, of course, there were many companies that were owed money by Wabush Mines. I have

here a list of creditors, but the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that nowhere on that

list are the pensioners. That's a sad, sad situation. That's what the people of

Wabush are facing today.

It's sad

when you see and I'll go through a couple of the creditors that are on the

list because it sort of makes me angry how big corporations like Cliffs Natural

Resources can maneuver their assets to benefit themselves. The majority of the

creditors on this list, certainly the major ones, are Cliffs themselves. So they

owe themselves money.

For

instance and I'll go through just a couple of them the first on the list is

the Bloom Lake Iron Ore Mine which is also a company owned by Cliffs. They owe

them $9 million. Cliffs Mining Company, CMC Cliffs Mining Company, for those

of you who don't know, is the company that Cliffs Natural Resources operates in

the Mesabi Range in Minnesota. So they're not even in Canada. They owe them $200

million $200 million.

The list

goes on. We do have a couple that are familiar to us like Bell Aliant, for

instance. They owe them $13,000. When you compare that to the companies that

they own, it's just mind boggling.

That's

the problem that we find ourselves in here today. Not only do they owe the

parent company, but they owe each other. Wabush Mines is one subsidiary who owns

a partner subsidiary of Wabush Resources Inc. They owe them $635 million $635

million. Then they owe another company which is the same owner as Cliffs

Natural Resources the Wabush Iron Ore Company. They owe them $615 million.

The

problem, Mr. Speaker, is that and the list goes on. I'm not going to go

through all of them. I might get a chance later on to go through some more of

them. The fact of the matter is that nowhere on that secured list of creditors

are the people who have been mostly affected, and that's the pensioners of

Wabush Mines. Not only the people that are on pension, but the people who were

employed by Wabush Mines at the time of the shutdown, which is over 400 people.

In total, there are 2,400 pensioners affected by this move by Cliffs Natural

Resources.

You may

talk about: How did they get away with it? Well, you see our province has

they're not foolproof legislations or regulations regarding pension plans, but

they're pretty good. Our legislation says that any unfunded liability, the owner

of the pension plan which in this case was Cliffs Natural Resources has an

obligation to fully fund the plan.

In 2014,

they were ordered because there was an unfunded liability in 2014. Cliffs

Natural Resources were ordered to put money into the plan, as well as to

continue their regular payments. What happened in May 2015, they made their

special payments for 2014 and part of 2015, but what happened when they went

under bankruptcy protection a court in Quebec, the Quebec Supreme Court said

well, because you're now under the CCAA, which is the protection plan, you no

longer have to pay, so you're off the hook.

I'm

hoping I'm going to get more time to speak to this I know I will but the

purpose of this and as you know, and I can get into that later on, we ended up

having to wind up the plan. Because if we had nobody was contributing to it, the

plan would have gone bankrupt itself and there would be no money there for

either the pensioners or the people that are due to retire. That's why the plan

was wound up: to protect the plan and to protect the people that are there, even

though they've received, as of March 1, 25 per cent decrease in the

non-unionized, and 21 per cent in the unionized.

So what

has happened, CCAA, is that the MP for Labrador, Ms. Yvonne Jones, has formed a

parliamentary committee to lobby the CCAA and lobby the federal government,

because the CCAA is scheduled to be reviewed every five years. The last review

was 2014, so it's due to be reviewed again in 2019, but there's no reason why

that cannot be reviewed before then.

What she

has done, she has formed a committee, and they call themselves the Liberal Steel

Caucus which is a good name, for now and it consists of the hon.

Bob Bratina from Hamilton East Stoney Creek; Terry Sheehan is co-chair from

Sault Ste. Marie; Karina Gould from Burlington; Celina Caesar-Chavannes from

Whitby; Francesco Sorbara from Vaughan Woodbridge; Patty Hajdu from Thunder

Bay Superior North; Don Rusnak from Thunder Bay Rainy River; and Paul

Lefebvre from Sudbury.

As you

can see, these are towns and cities that have a strong mining relationship. What

they're doing and their next meeting is scheduled for next week with the

industry reps they are planning now to put forward amendments to the CCAA that

will strengthen the CCAA in favour of the pensioners and make the pensioners as

a secured creditor with all these other multi-international companies that are

on the secured creditors list, that the pensioners would become part of the

secured creditors.

They

have a ways to go and they have to reach out. Of course, they have to get it

through Parliament. I know the Parti Qubcois has already provided their

support because of the strong mining background and the people that they

represent have also been affected by this on the Quebec North Shore in

Pointe-Noire, Sept-les who is part of the Wabush Mines shutdown. They're on

board.

They

have to lobby now to the other parties in the House and gain support to push

these amendments forward. It is going to take some time; I know that.

Nevertheless what this PMR does today and I look to the Official Opposition and

Third Party I don't see any reason why they would not support this for

support today so that we as a government have a role to play in supporting the

efforts of the parliamentary committee to push these amendments forward.

Now,

what that role will be remains to be seen, but I know that we've already

provided support through our superintendent of pensions, through our

legislation, which is fairly strong, but as I said it's not foolproof. I guess

in this case what happened was our provincial legislation was trumped by CCAA

once Cliffs Natural Resources went into bankruptcy protection. We have no

control over that, nevertheless we need to make sure that if the CCAA is going

to trump us, then they need to have protection in place to protect the people

who have been affected most in Wabush and not only Wabush, by the way. Every

Member in this House has a Wabush pensioner living in their district somewhere

everyone because they are all over the province, the country and the world,

really.

Time is

running out, but I look forward to the comments from the other speakers today

and I look forward to their support.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Lane):

The Speaker recognizes

the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed,

it's an honour to stand and speak to the private Member's motion today. I'm just

going read the motion here. I know my hon. colleague for Labrador West, who is

presenting this, read it out but I just want to acknowledge it again so there

will be relevance to the conversation that I have as I go through the next

number of minutes.

BE IT

RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports the efforts

of Federal Members of Parliament, led by the MP for Labrador, in seeking

amendments to the CCAA to ensure pensioners are given priority on the secured

creditors' list during the bankruptcy protection process.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a resolution that we wholeheartedly support. I do want to thank

the Member for putting it forward, and I do want to thank the seconder, the

Member for Torngat Mountains, for seconding that. I do know their passion for

Labrador. I do know their passion for doing what's right, as we have the same

principles over here.

This is

one of those things where you look at a wrong that's been done and try to find a

mechanism to make it right. It's good that we are finding a collaborative

approach between this House of Assembly, the entities that we have in this

province, and working with our counterparts on a federal basis, those who

represent the needs of the people in this province on a federal level. So it's

good that we're moving that forward.

I do

want to note too that I come from three generations of miners, so I have a bit

of kinship when it comes to what this means to people, and people who work in

mining communities, particularly one-industry communities. When they work all of

their lives, their pensions, what they work towards and what that means for

their stability and what it means for their livelihoods in the future.

Particularly, if you look at communities where people migrated to when they came

from other communities around this province because we're a migrant-oriented

province here, where people came from different areas they went where the jobs

were, and they used their expertise.

Many

years ago, my great-grandfather was a miner, my grandfather was a miner and my

father was miner. As people would know, and the Member for Labrador West would

attest to in a conversation we had, a number of the people from Bell Island when

the mines closed in the '60s moved to Wabush and Labrador City and were part of

that initial building stage up there.

remember in the early '70s, 1970, my father had been to Churchill Falls; he was

at the time working in St. Lawrence and had secured a job in Wabush. He was

coming home for Christmas and the plan was, as the Member had said, he'd go up

first for three or four months and then the family would come after. That's how

the men settled. They went up, got their bearings, got their houses and do that.

We were all poised. When school was going to end that June, we were going to

move to Labrador and that would be our new home.

Unfortunately, he passed away in a car accident on the way home from the mining

that time. We never got to go to Labrador and to Wabush. It might have been a

different destiny. It might have been a different philosophy. Not only would I

be standing here defending and trying to put something in place in supporting

our colleagues over there for pensioners and people I don't know and haven't

met, but it probably would have been something for my father. Who knows destiny,

I might have stayed in Wabush and became a miner and would have very proud to do

so.

This is

not only about the mining industry; it's about addressing the needs of other

industries, protecting people who pay into a pension plan. Where it's not

protected by a company, it's done in good faith. The companies pay into it, the

employees pay into it, based on the principle that companies should be solvent.

People do that for the duration of their working lifetime, and expect at the end

of it what they paid into and what their expectation is of when they get out in

a healthy manner and be able to provide for themselves and their families in

their retirement time.

Unfortunately, in this case, they worked towards that. They knew there were

going to be challenges because over the last number of years there have been

issues around security of the mining industry anywhere, but particularly in

Wabush. At the end of it, through the unions and through the companies and

what looked like there would be some, at least, stability there and they bought

into that. That's what they based their lives on.

People

over the last number of years, the last two or three decades, some stayed in

Labrador, people went back to the towns they were originally from. People moved

for various reasons where their family had migrated to, but they did that based

on the principle of the incomes that they had. That was going to be their

stability for the duration of their lifetimes.

Anybody

we all know we live within our means. We live, 99 per cent of the population,

cheque to cheque. So when people are relying on a pension that they paid into

and it's their stability and all of a sudden that gets changed without them

having any input or any control over, and because somebody else didn't manage a

company properly or didn't invest in a mannerism that would have been beneficial

to the first primary people should have been the workers; not the stakeholders

or not the secondary creditors.

In this

case, the legislation that needs to be changed is based on the principle of

protecting the key people who obviously made these companies viable for decades

and decades. That's the crux of what I see here as the valuable part of this

motion. We're all going to come together and we're all going to fight for the

common cause. The common cause is protecting those workers who pay into a

pension plan so they have stability in their later years.

Mr.

Speaker, as I went through the motion and started to get a little bit more

understanding of the impact it would have and I'll emphasize a little bit more

on Wabush, and as my hon. colleague had mentioned there, we've got 400 people

who only recently went out and are trying to now get some stability around their

pension plans. We've got another 2,000 who are pensioners who have been relying

on this for the last number of decades. Now all of a sudden their world is

turned upside down. In some cases 25 per cent of your income is gone keeping

in mind these are not indexed pensions. So they have to take the everyday hits

of cost of living increases year in, year out, as part of that.

As you

get older, the expectation around additional costs in health care and all these

things have to be incurred. Now all of a sudden somebody comes to you and says

25 per cent of your monthly income is gone. No fault of yours, absolutely no

fault of yours. You've done your part, you've worked, and you've paid in to

every pension plan that you could pay into. You've done everything in the right

interest of everybody. You've paid your taxes. You contributed to society, and

benefits to everybody else in the province, and now all of a sudden you're going

to have to take a major hit. We all take our hits every now and then with

increases in taxes and everything else, but you're taking a major hit again,

no fault of your own 21 per cent in other categories.

When you

look that, some of the data I looked at, the average income in Wabush was

$84,000 fairly good income, but you also got to take into account the cost of

living in Wabush and Labrador City, and my hon. Member would attest to this,

housing astronomical costing what a house would cost and your mortgage

payments and that. People wanted to come out for a visit at the extra costing of

being able to travel.

So an

income like that doesn't leave a lot of room for people to be able to have an

immense amount of savings in their bank accounts. They, like everybody else,

were looking at if they stayed in their home community their pensions would get

them through the next number of years, and if they moved and came out they could

absorb those type of expenses because of the fact that their small savings would

have got them to that, but their pensions would be stable. That's where we are

right now, and it becomes a major issue here.

Wabush

was key employer in that part of Labrador, particularly Labrador West, for

decades and decades. It was a drawing card for stability for fishermen in

different parts of the province, for miners from other parts of the province,

tradespeople. It also was open to people from all over the country and other

nationalities. One thing about Wabush, it was a melting pot of people from all

parts of this province, but all parts of this country, and in the world.

So it

was a great opportunity for a community to grow, provide a great service, be an

economic boost for this province, and for people there to take pride in what

they did and they very much did and built a great community, and a community

that will still thrive, even with the adversity they're facing right now, no

doubt about it.

Again,

for people to be able to come back and take a major hit, a major financial

burden based on the principle that somebody else didn't do due diligence, and

because there wasn't proper legislation in place to cover clauses in

an act or

an agreement that protects companies, that's why as I mentioned earlier, let's

find a way to rectify that wrong.

This

approach here, I like very much. I know Members on this side are very supportive

of that and obviously other Members will talk to that. I would suspect Members

of the Third Party, without putting words in their mouth, would support the fact

that we're standing up for the rights of a group who right now really don't have

much of a voice because they've been dispersed all over various parts of the

world. They are getting older. They are obviously now taking a financial hit.

They have to readjust and requalify for their own ability to be able to provide

for themselves and their family members.

As I

look at this, I look at the fact that we're fully supportive in seeking an

amendment to the CCAA because, again, we feel it doesn't go far enough to

protect workers. It probably goes further in protecting those who may have a

claim from a business point of view to a particular company that goes into

bankruptcy, which is not the principle of protecting the workers who built those

companies over the years.

As I

went through it and I did a little research on exactly what the whole act is

about, the only question I had particularly, or the only concern I had was

around whether or not there was some way we could put in it that we could force

it to at least put it as an agenda item, that there would be a way of making it

retroactive to those Members who are out there now; those pensioners for what

they've lost.

I know

we have a great opportunity to fight on a go-forward basis, but if there could

be some way it could be retroactive to address the needs, because people have

lost I've talked to pensioners who are in my own district. I know my

colleagues have them. I know other colleagues have it as part of that. So that

was an important point.

As I had

the discussion and I had the discussion with my colleagues, we thought about

with full support for this and that we would propose a small amendment that we

felt would enforce at least being on the agenda and giving to the committee, the

support for the committee, a fact around let's make this all-encompassing. That

it supports all workers out there but also those who have been wronged that

there might be a way to make it retroactive.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm proposing an amendment. I move, seconded by the Member for

Ferryland, that a resolution be amended in the resolution clause by adding after

the word process the words and urge the Parliament to give these changes

retroactive effect so that pensioners of Wabush Mines may benefit from this

action.

present that as an amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We'll

take a short recess to determine whether or not the amendment is in order.

The

House is recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found the amendment to be in

order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to hear that it's in order. Again, it was meant to enhance exactly what has been

put forward here by the Member for Labrador West. The legal approaches and that,

they will be determined by the legal minds in Ottawa and the committee itself.

The intent here is to ensure that those pensioners who have already lost, who

have already fallen behind because of the reductions in their pensions from 25

per cent to 21 per cent, that there's at least a glimmer of hope it will be

discussed, that there's a possibility maybe this can be rectified and they can

get back what has been taken away from them unjustly.

wanted to continue that process and that amendment there, I think, gives a

little bit more leeway to our seven colleagues in Ottawa to justify why these

amendments should be made and why there should be a full review of what is going

on there. No doubt they can pass that on to their colleagues who come from other

mining communities about the injustice here and how we protect the workers

themselves.

I'm glad

that went through. It was a great opportunity for us in our discussions in

caucus around supporting the private Member's motion, but particularly if there

was some nuance there that we could add to it. We wanted to ensure another part

of what needed to be done in this province. All of us talked about I know four

of us had constituents who were miners in Labrador, who were now moved back to

their communities, and in some cases were devastated by the reduction in their

income right now on a given basis. Some actually now, have been able to qualify

for other pensions they weren't eligible for, which doesn't make up what they've

lost because they were decent pensions.

As a

result, if you lose 25 per cent of an income, and that's your livelihood that

you're relying on, it obviously puts you in a different category. That had a

major effect on people. I've had some people talk to me about how they had

worked all their lives when they were in Labrador. When they'd come down in the

summertime for their holidays they were building a cabin and that, but because

of the lost revenue now in their income stream, they've had to sell off their

cabins.

At least

we can tell the people they haven't been forgotten. I know the Members from

Labrador have been fighting for it for the last number of years. I know the

former Member for the House of Assembly and the MP up there now; she's been

fighting for it. I have every expectation, now that she's on the government

side, that she'll have influence.

I heard

the Members that have added to that committee and the communities they

represent. That will add a real credence. There's power in numbers, particularly

when there's a commonality here and a brotherhood and a sisterhood from

communities that rely on the mining industry and rely on pensions that are

covered by particular companies in this.

I think

it will send a message to the industry out there, particularly the companies,

the big multinationals, that protection of the workers has to be first and

foremost, and that all levels of government provincial governments and

municipal governments should be engaged in this too, and federal governments

are going to put in place legislation that ensures workers are protected.

There's

no doubt, you have a responsibility to also try to protect the solvency of

companies because they're going to help drive the economy. They're the ones who

are going to start these major projects and the mines and that in these

communities. This has to be a collaborative approach between the companies

themselves, all levels of government and the employees. The foremost, ultimate

issue at hand here is to protect those who pay into pension plans to ensure they

have some solvency for the rest of their lives.

Mr.

Speaker, on that, we will be supporting or I definitely will be supporting

this motion. I look forward to the vote at the end of the day.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy to rise in this hon. House, especially after my colleague across the way

made a friendly amendment to urge the Parliament to give changes of our PMR here

for retroactivity for pensioners of Wabush Mines. I couldn't agree more. I think

it's a great, friendly amendment. I have no problem supporting that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm quite happy the hon. Member for the District of Labrador West

brought this private Member's resolution forward. It's understandably so, we've

got to make sure we always try to protect our employees that are going to be

providing such great work for these corporations. It's timely and necessary, as

pensioners who have toiled with Wabush Mines are facing a difficult reality that

the company has entered bankruptcy protection.

It's a

very difficult situation for all parties involved. The miners participated in

this dangerous, taxing environment. They entered this knowingly. They were

surrounded by hazards, knowing their labour is both physical it takes a

physical toll on their body and mentally as well.

The hard

work that is carried out in these difficult conditions need to be compensated.

The hon. Member across the way mentioned their compensation, but that also goes

one step further from compensation for actually doing the work, to actually

receiving the compensation they're owed and contracted based on their services

rendered.

Mining

has historically been one of the pillars of our economy. We're a resource-rich

province. Labrador is a treasured house of mineral wealth and has long been a

critical facet of our economic activity in this province. We owe it to the men

and women who built the industry to fight for them as they confront this major

issue.

The

individuals laboured under the agreement so that they, at the end of their

careers, would have a comfortable and hard-earned retirement. Wabush Mines was

able to stop the special payments to this pension plan because of a Quebec court

ruling in favour of creditor protection, as the hon. the Member for Labrador

West alluded to earlier.

As a

government, we did not and still do not support this decision. We fought it but,

ultimately, the court in another jurisdiction made this decision. The court

ignored our objections. We are quite lucky we have such strong ties to our

federal counterparts in Ottawa, and we believe that with the strong ally in this

fight, with Ottawa for Wabush Mines pensioners.

Our

friends in Ottawa have the power to amend the legislation that led to this

decision. As the Member for Labrador West stated in his resolution, this could

affect pensioners in other jurisdictions as well, since the unfunded pension

liability is widespread throughout our country and, in turn, our province.

There's

strong bipartisan support which I think we're going to get from across the

House for sure for this PMR. It is important that we stand united to show this

vital support to the people that are suffering under this heinous act by the

company.

We have

to do everything we can, as a government, to protect the pensions and

individuals who worked so hard in the mining sector. Because this issue crosses

provincial borders and is bound by federal statutes, it's important. There are

many groups involved that also need to be looked at. The unions, the

stakeholders, creditors and governments all play a vital role in this, and

that's why our MPs are going to be able to advocate to amend this legislation.

As of

March 1, the Wabush Mines pensioners who were receiving $1,000 per month can

expect, and have been cut to, as I said before, 25 per cent if not in the union

and 21 per cent for unionized. It is disheartening to imagine a substantial cut

like that to their income coming in each and every month. It's amazing to me

that we could even sit idly by without doing something like we're doing here

today.

We have

to get this changed in order to ensure that these individuals here that have

worked so hard in the mining industry to make Cliffs Natural Resources and

Wabush Mines a success, they shouldn't be affected by the errors of the

corporations that happen to employ them.

While we

cannot go back in time and reverse the course for sure, I do, however, like the

amendment from the hon. Member across the way and I think that is a great focus

that we can move forward on to try to build, and hopefully our MPs can get this

legislation changed so it can be retroactive. So those people, not only can we

improve it for the future, people who may be affected by corporations doing this

in the future, but we can probably, hopefully, be able to go back and

retroactively fix some of the wrongs that have been done to these pensioners.

Corporations have a social contract with the employees, as well as in the

community. When times are tough, people have who have paid into this particular

pension plan, they should be able to receive what they have paid into and what

they've agreed to receiving. People shouldn't have to worry about the future

after decades of great work in a particular industry or with a particular

company.

People

made plans based on the money that they were going to be receiving from their

pensions. Whether that's vacations or visiting with the grandkids, or even

putting food on their table, it's not right to have that happen to them.

Pensioners need to be treated fairly and companies should not be able to operate

in a manner that is not above board and the people who have given so much to

them.

It's

disheartening to think the Supreme Court of Quebec would not listen to the 2,300

members and the 1,100 retirees as well as their provincial government who was

advocating on their behalf. It's amazing to me.

This PMR

needs to be bipartisan, as we've said before. It's great that we can speak

together to show our counterparts in Ottawa that we're all in this together and

that we're trying our best to bring forward these changes, because it has to

happen, not just for the Wabush retirees but for all members that have a union,

have big companies that shouldn't be able to do what they've done.

Stability is what every worker wants and needs in their retirement. By making

this resolution we will focus the attention back on this devastating occurrence

to these pensioners. Rest assured that we will work with our federal

counterparts to continue to make the appropriate changes to legislation to

protect our most vulnerable individuals.

In our

province, mining is a $3 billion industry; that's a huge percentage of our total

economic output. It's a tremendously vital industry for us here and we want to

make sure that it has long-term sustainability and making the changes to the

legislation will help in that way so employees have confidence that their

pensions are going to be protected when they do those weeks and months and years

of work.

The

industry lives and dies by its workers. Without miners, there is no mining

industry. As many of us can attest to, you can't expect a company to reap the

resources, taking them out of Labrador and wherever they are to in our province

or anywhere in Canada for that matter, and not have to take care of their major

resource: their employees. The employees are the reason why this material comes

out of the ground and it should be the reason why we make sure we protect them

long term.

We have

to give our workforce the confidence they need to choose mining as a profession.

The hon. Member for Labrador West understands that his whole community, not his

whole community, but a large portion of his people in Lab West are affected

directly by this, but he mentioned earlier that all of our districts are

affected. I've had calls and it is very disheartening to have to hear people say

that they're taking a 25 per cent reduction in their pension. I mean, that's not

sensible; it's not even remotely right.

In the

case of Wabush Mines pensioners, they have earned their hard-earned pensions and

we want to make sure we don't forget them, and that's why I like the friendly

amendment that our hon. Member across the way mentioned. I think that recognizes

the effects that it has had on them, the devastating effects, and hopefully with

a little luck on our side we'll be able to get this done retroactively. I have

no problem supporting that.

That's

what we are doing here today, trying to support the hard-working men and women

who spent their careers in the mines, making Newfoundland and Labrador's economy

stronger. We are showing that we value the contribution and we're willing to

fight for them and advocate in favour of a fair resolution to this issue.

encourage all Members in this House and all Members across Newfoundland and

Labrador and all people across Newfoundland and Labrador to join this fight with

us and contact their MPs to get onside with this issue.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The hon. the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand and speak to this private Member's motion put forward by the

Member for Labrador West. Indeed it is a very important motion in regard to

those employees in Wabush and how they've been affected by a receivership and a

stay that was mentioned by the hon. Member, and the current rules that are in

place the Companies' Creditors Arrangement

Act , CCAA, and how at this particular point it's not at the level that

allows protection for those employees that have worked at the mine for a number

of years, have invested like anybody would.

Part of

that employment relationship would be the fact that they recognize that there

were benefits they were accruing at the time they were working and that they

would lay out their future after retirement and had comfort in the fact that

those benefits were there for them, whether that's their actual pension, whether

it's their medical plan, what that is. As we all know, as we get older and

retire there is certainly greater need, oftentimes, for things like medical

health insurance, those types of things. So it's very important that this motion

came to the House today.

I do

want to recognize as well my colleague for Conception Bay East Bell Island in

regard to the amendment that he added. It's well intentioned by the Member for

Labrador West in regard to what he was trying to achieve to bring encouragement

and support to our federal MPs in Ottawa to lobby for changes to the actual

legislation, which is a federal statute which needs to be changed at that level

in the Parliament of Canada, and to ensure that is changed. We're not so sure

with the current motion if it would have allowed the current issue that we're

discussing, the employees who were involved with Wabush Mines, whether it would

help them in terms of moving forward.

The

amendment that's laid out and he spoke positively, the last speaker did, on

that amendment. That gives a wholesome view or holistic view of what we're

talking about. It looks at and suggests that we do everything we possibly can to

try and assist those that have been negatively affected by what's happened with

Wabush Mines and in regard to the receivership and where the pensioners are in

regard to creditor status.

They

need to be on top of the list. We need to make sure that, in those cases,

pensioners are taken care of first and foremost. That's why it's important that

we look at the retroactivity of any changes that are made in the Parliament of

Canada to make sure that those folks we're talking about here today, here and

now, that have been affected in the past number of months and will be affected

in the future, that the provisions are made that can reassure them and reassure

their families on their future and what they expected when they worked, and

their remuneration and their compensation will continue on as it should have,

that they accrued when they worked.

I know

the Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville spoke of the fact that the

federal members in Ottawa have the ability to change the legislation. We

certainly encourage them to do that, and do it quickly, move it forward

obviously, their leader is the Prime Minister. Engage the relevant minister

who's responsible for the legislation to get it moving and to get this done.

understanding in regard to the CCAA and the legislation itself, it's very

prescriptive. It is my understanding, it directs the court in a particular

circumstance what to do. In this particular case if it's changed hopefully, it

can be changed in a manner that directs the court to deal with creditors and to

deal with these employees of Wabush Mines and to deal with them prescriptively

in the legislation or in the direction given to the court.

Again, I

said this was timely, but it's timely because I know the hon. Member mentioned

as well people they know. I have a number of people in my district who have

worked at Wabush Mines, and listen to them first hand in terms of the

devastating effect these changes have made to them and their families and two,

in particular. I think to bring some relevancy to it I'm going to share

speaking to those two families, the effect it's had on them. It's devastating.

Both are retired, looking to plan out the next number of years and what their

expectations are, as I said before, when they worked and what dramatic effect

it's having on them now.

One of

the particular couples I spoke to I spoke to them several times, actually.

Obviously, they're very concerned over the past number of months. When I heard

the hon. Member was bringing the motion to the House, I followed up with them

and went through it again and said, just give me some actual details of what the

financial effect has been on you so we can see. They laid out some information

to me month by month. So I want to share that with Members and the public just

to get a general idea of what we're talking about here.

One of

the couples lost about $282 per month from their pension $282 per month. Think

about that, Madam Speaker, in terms of what that amounts to. If we were to take

all of a sudden almost $300 plucked right out of your disposable income on a

monthly basis enormous.

There

was a death benefit that was immediately removed that they were entitled to and

had accrued over the number of years they worked. They lost their medical plan,

which is huge. It's one thing to lose those dollars, those net dollars from your

monthly income, but the medical plan. We all know when you have to purchase a

medical plan it gets costlier the older you get.

So these

are individuals who paid into a medical plan, believed it was there, knew what

the medical plan held for them with regard to what they could access and how it

would take care of them, but all of a sudden it was gone. For this couple and

their family I spoke to their daughter as well and the concerns. It's not only

the individual who worked, it's the family. It's a concern. It's right

throughout their whole family and their circle of friends.

Another

gentleman I spoke to, and I was speaking to him over the past number of months

in regard to it, he worked for 32 years at Wabush Mines, and moved back to my

area just a number of years ago. Obviously, 32 years, what an investment in a

company. With that, as I keep saying, he built up a set of remuneration and

packages and plans to help him later in life but all of a sudden that was taken

away.

As he

said, he gave the best years of his life to the company and he stayed. One of

the reasons he stayed was because of the benefits and the pension. As I said, he

enjoyed his work. He invested a lot in the company, but the greatest benefit for

him at the time was living in Labrador, he enjoyed it, but at some point

expected he would move back to his home with the security of the benefits and

pensions he had accrued.

retired in 2008, and has been retired since then. When he retired he would have

a medical plan worth about $60,000 for him and $60,000 for his wife combined,

which would be about $120,000 worth in the medical plan; a death benefit of

$12,500 for him and $12,500 for his spouse and, as well, the pension component

that he would have.

In 2015,

he was given five days' notice that he would be losing his medical and death

benefit. He was given the opportunity to transfer over to another company but he

had to do it within a 30-day period. In that whole transaction, what transpired

was he lost both his wife and his death benefit. The cost of these benefits is

about $120 for the retiree and $190 for a spouse per month. The total cost is

about $310 per month for both significant.

I talked

about the medical plan. So at that point in time he had a total of $120,000 in

medical, with $27,000 used up between him and his spouse. At that particular

time he had about $93,000 left of unused medical plan, which is significant, but

what happened when the transaction took place in May 2015, that was gone. So

$93,000 he had built up and was unused for him and his wife, it was all of a

sudden no longer available.

Now,

think about that. You spent 32 years working. You retired. You moved back to

where you originally grew up to enjoy your retirement years, maybe go on and do

some other things, but the greatest understanding you would have is that you had

things like medical insurance to take care of you.

At this

particular time, obviously, that couple realizes this is a new day it's not a

good day where they had this medical plan and could access it, that it was no

longer available. That's the benefit side of it.

January 2016, the pension was cut 21 per cent. His income was cut 21 per cent

which resulted in $340 per month. Imagine that. We can all understand our

income, our gross income, our disposable income. We have a certain standard of

living and all of a sudden, unexpectedly, a significant portion of that is torn

away. As I said when I started, devastating for these families and what has

happened to them.

When you

look at the loss of medical insurance and having to purchase medical insurance

for this retiree and his family, coupled with that his pension income reduction,

it is $650 a month. With the reduction in what his actual pension is and dollars

he needs to pay out for medical insurance that he lost $650 a month.

That's

someone who is already on a pension. As I said, worked 32 years and this is what

they're receiving. This is what they have to look forward too and the challenge

they have today in terms of what has transpired here.

With

those examples everybody agrees here I'm sure that's the reason we're having

this motion. With the amendment that was proposed by my colleague for Conception

Bay East Bell Island, I think it puts more teeth into it. We will advocate to

those elected MPs in Ottawa to ensure we get something done with this, and get

something done very quickly.

It's

every important for corporations to be held accountable as we move forward, but

for those individuals, and two I've just mentioned here from my district who

gave a lot to Wabush Mines, what they had and what they worked for, that they

can get entitlement to. That's so very important as we move forward with this

private Member's motion, that we advocate I think the motion referenced the

Liberal MP for Labrador would lead this, but it needs to be led in a very active

manner that we can have this dealt with, and go back and look if we can help

those employees from Wabush Mines in terms of being retroactive.

This is

a motion. This isn't about rewriting legislation. That's left to the

parliamentarians and all others in Ottawa and the lawyers to come up with a

manner and a means to go back and try and address and help those people who

worked at Wabush Mines that have been so devastatingly affected by what has

transpired.

That's

what we're doing here today. We're hopefully going to unanimously pass a motion

that says let's look at the workers of Wabush who have been affected. Let's look

at amending this legislation for those going forward, on a corporate basis, to

make sure it never happens again.

That's

why I think the amendment is so important. I acknowledge the Member for Lab West

for bringing it forward for discussions we've had on it. I certainly encourage

all Members to support the amendment.

I wish

and advocate to our MPs in Ottawa that they quickly get on this, move it

forward. They have the authority to make the changes. They are the governing

party in Ottawa in the Legislature. This needs to get done. It should be done

quickly so we can address the concerns of the employees of today, and when we

look at things like this happening in the future, that it never happens again

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada as a whole.

I thank

the hon. Member for bringing forth the motion. We'll certainly be supporting it

on this side.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's

with great pleasure I rise today to speak to this private Member's resolution

brought in by the Member for Lab West. The Member for Lab West has been very

passionate about this issue as it affects many people in his district. As

acknowledged and previously stated, it certainly affects people throughout the

province as a whole. So I'm very pleased to see the Member for Lab West bring

this issue to the table.

Just to

put in context, for those who might be tuning in or haven't heard around what

this private Member's resolution means and what it is. Essentially, we're

putting strong lobby efforts together to look at amending some federal

legislation, the federal legislation that currently takes into account the issue

around Wabush Mines. I'm going to try and put that in a bit of context for

everyone here.

Before

doing so, I also want to acknowledge the Member for Conception Bay East Bell

Island for his words. He was very passionate about the subject as well, as was

the Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville and the Member for Ferryland.

Essentially, what's happening here is there's provincial law and there's federal

law. While our provincial law is quite strong when it comes to pensions and

pension liabilities and requirements, we do make it mandatory for all companies

to submit updates on the funding of their pensions. We require them to make

special payments to their pension liabilities when there is a deficit. However,

at a certain point in time companies can fall under the federal legislation. The

federal legislation is referred to as the CCAA, the Companies' Creditors

Agreement Act. The Supreme Court decision in Quebec ruled in favour of Wabush

Mines in this regard.

Basically, it's a federal act that allows financially troubled companies,

opportunities to restructure their affairs. The companies would have to have

over $5 million in revenue, I believe, as the Member for Labrador West

indicated. So it's only a certain percentage of companies that can fall under

this type of protection. It allows creditors to receive some form of payment for

amounts owed to them.

Now, the

key

part in this legislation here is around the word creditors because Wabush

Mines, in this particular instance, has a number of creditors, as the Member for

Lab. West outlined. I'll refer to some of them in a moment, but the creditors

are secured creditors. That's the key piece to this federal legislation.

The

pensioners, in this particular instance, are not secured creditors. Under this

current legislation, the pensioners are not covered at all.

The

companies on this creditor list are what are really kind of interesting and

appalling. As the Member for Lab. West eluded to, Wabush Mines or Cliffs Natural

Resources, being the parent company, and then there are a number of subsidiary

companies as well. Under that they're essentially paying themselves as their own

creditor here.

They

also owe millions of dollars to other companies, be it railway companies and

Bell Aliant, other payments that they didn't make. All of these individual

companies are falling under their creditor list. When and if this is taken care

of, they'll receive some form of payment, but our pensioners are not included in

there at all.

MR. LETTO:

(Inaudible.)

MR. FINN:

Thank you very much to the

Member for Lab. West.

We're

looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in which they owe, basically,

themselves in this instance. Wabush Lake Railway Company Limited, Cliffs Mining

Company now this is Cliffs Natural Resources but Cliffs Mining Company is a

creditor on this list that's owed to the tune of $200 million. I can go on and

on. There are five or six pages of amounts they owe and different companies that

they owe, but, essentially, it's the pensioners here who have been forgotten.

This

particular piece of legislation is important to look at amendments here

federally, because it's not just the Wabush Mine pensioners who could be

affected. There are other industries across the country that would fall under

similar protection under CCAA and that would have implications on pensioners of

those. Whether that's other mining companies in other provinces in the country,

it could be forestry-related instances, auto manufacturers. The list goes on and

on. People who have worked hard their entire lives contributing to their pension

and now are finding themselves in a situation when there's a massive reduction

of such. We're not sure what's going to happen as we move further, right now, in

terms of bankruptcy.

It's

certainly very important we look at having our lobby efforts now. As alluded to,

with our strong colleagues in Ottawa, that's the plan right now, and led by the

MP for Labrador, Yvonne Jones, and her great team, which the Member for Lab West

has alluded to as well.

The

Member for Ferryland and the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island spoke

specifically to personal connections as well. I don't have any personal

connections. I do have friends I've heard of who have friends and this sort of

thing with respect to being directly affected here.

The

overall picture is this is a great time where our side of the House and the

Opposition can work together in this lobby effort because we're all recognizing

that it affects everybody, whether or not it affects my district or the Member

for Virginia Waters Pleasantville's District, that's not the important piece

here. The thing is it affects everybody that has a vested interest in this

pension plan and certainly the future implications of such in other pension plan

issues. It's something very important. I'm glad that we can all stand and work

together on this.

The

people in the mining industry are some of the toughest people you'll find. The

conditions they expose themselves to in mining, the dangers of such, the

physical toll it takes on their bodies; they're some of the hardest working

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in our resource industry that we have out

there. Knowing that they laboured for years and years and made pension

contributions, and now they're in a position where this can be taken away from

them and has already been cut and the Member for Ferryland referenced some

direct impacts it's not acceptable. It's not acceptable at all. It's not

acceptable in 2016. How a federal law and a court ruling in Quebec from the

Supreme Court can essentially undermine the entire process of all those people

who worked so very hard.

I'm not

going to belabour the issue too much further. I know the Third Party will

certainly get a chance to speak to this. I believe we'll be looking at another

speaker on our side before we conclude debate. Overall, this is essentially a

resolution where we have a strong lobby effort, through our colleagues in

Ottawa. All sides are going to be working hard on this to ensure the pensioners

of Wabush Mines have their fair share. I can't stress enough the importance and

the implication it has on a number of industries. Not just in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but across the country as well.

With

that oh, before I conclude, sorry, just to acknowledge the amendment that was

put forward by the Official Opposition. It is certainly a great amendment and

we've acknowledged we'll be supporting that. Just in extension to our lobby

efforts, any decisions made would be urged to be retroactive as well.

So I'd

like to thank very much the Member for Labrador West for putting this private

Member's resolution forward. We certainly appreciate the co-operation from the

Opposition and we look forward to co-operation from the Third Party as well.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I'm

really pleased I always say I'm pleased to stand, but I'm really pleased to

stand to speak to this today. I'm very glad that the private Member's motion was

brought forward. I thank the Member for Labrador West for doing that.

Probably

we all have very frustrating moments as MHAs, but I think there are times when

one feels sometimes very helpless, you know, you can't do anything. When Wabush

Mines closed down I was still the leader of our party and, as leader, I made

visits to Labrador West to meet with the workers, as other leaders did as well.

It is such a helpless feeling because there was nothing that we could do with

regard to what was going to happen in terms of the loss of the pensions and

their not being recognized under the law as having first rights as workers. It

was really, really frustrating.

At least

today we're talking about something that we can at least promote some action on

and hopefully get changed in this country. The closure of mines in particular,

the closure of industrial developments, the closure of major manufacturing

operations in the country goes on all the time. Companies always get protected.

Who doesn't get protected are the workers. They don't get protected, and that's

what this is about. I'm delighted that we're discussing it because Canadian laws

do not protect the workers; Canadian laws protect the companies and the

companies go on.

remember once being in the southern tip of Peru and meeting with people,

communities and workers there in a little town that had been devastated by a

company. I won't name the company, bu