PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

January 20, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 59

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order,

please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to recognize and welcome the Deputy Chief of

Operations, Don Byrne, from the West End Fire Station.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will

have members' statements from the Member for the District of Signal Hill

Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District for The Straits White Bay

North; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for

the District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo

La Poile; and the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

In my District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, we are blessed with a

wonderful neighbourhood school.

Bishop Feild Elementary's diverse population makes it a unique

school with a strong community spirit.

The students succeed in many different areas.

The most recent is probably the very successful season the Bishop Feild

Elementary cross-country running team enjoyed in fall 2014.

The Grade 5 girls won the team award in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Athletic Association 22 nd Annual Running series for

schools.

Even more exciting news for everyone at the school, Bishop Feild took

third place in the Paul McCloy Award Competition.

The award is given out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Athletics

Association to the school with the highest combined boys and girls team

scores. Of note is the fact

that the first place award this year went to a high school, and the

second to a junior high, so the Bishop Feild Elementary children really

have something to be proud of.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the runners at

Bishop Feild Elementary and to wish them success in all their future

endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr.

Speaker, a Northern Pen story from 1985 about hockey, with a photo of my dad,

Clyde Mitchelmore, gave inspiration for this statement.

This

article brought a smile on what would have been his

birthday. I fondly remember

him and his love for the game.

Exceptionally talented and committed athletes spend significant ice time

at Straits, Roddickton-Bide Arm arenas and the St. Anthony Polar Centre,

beginning with CanSkate, minor hockey, broomball, figure skating, and

recreational leagues.

Goaltender Aaron Mercer, with his St. Anthony roots, joined Goose Cove's

own, Adrian Ward, who advanced to the Western Kings AAA Bantoms as top

scorer. Both participated in

the 2015 Chronicle Herald East Coast Ice Jam hockey tournament on the

Major Bantam first all-star team.

This takes dedication and hard work.

Adrian's parents, Sharon and Roy, are also committed, driving him

to Corner Brook, 500 kilometres each way, most weekends to ensure

attendance to all team functions.

As well, Nathan Noel is identified as one of the top players draft

eligible in Canada this year and will have his St. Anthony fans cheering

at Thursday's CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game in Ontario.

I ask all hon. members to recognize the accomplishments of these

athletes, as they inspire others from small towns to pursue their

dreams.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

On Christmas Day I visited the folks at the new West End Fire Station on

Blackmarsh Road in the wonderful District of St. John's Centre.

I had a grand cup of tea and tour.

The visit brought to mind all the people who work Christmas, New

Year's, Hanukkah, on birthdays and anniversaries and keep us safe, tend

our sick, transport us, and keep our community and services going.

The new West End Fire Station itself is a thing of beauty.

They do not have a pole, but they do have a HAZMAT response

trailer, a unit uniquely dedicated to responding to emergencies

involving hazardous materials.

They also have the only hose drying tower for the whole city.

It is really quite amazing.

What makes the station unique is their RIC, Rapid Intervention Crew,

that offers city-wide safety for firefighters; but, more importantly,

there are twenty-eight dedicated, courageous officers and firefighters

who not only fight fires but respond to medical and other emergencies.

These are men and women who are expertly trained and committed to

keeping us safe.

Fire Chief Jerry Peach and team, on behalf of the people of St. John's

Centre, and this House of Assembly and beyond, thank you for your

incredible service. Bravo,

and again, thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Today I recognize Saint Luke's Homes, a division of Anglican Homes

Incorporated. Saint Luke's

was opened and dedicated on June 17, 1965, by the Rt. Rev. John A

Meaden, of which Bishop Meaden Manor is named after.

This year, Saint Luke's is celebrating its fiftieth year of

providing long-term care to seniors.

There have been many changes over the years, but today the facility

itself is made up of a 117-bed nursing home, an adult day respite

program for over-55 seniors.

The home is manned by a tremendously dedicated staff who contributes

significantly to the quality of life and care of the residents of Saint

Luke's and their families.

I look forward to taking

part in the various activities planned over the

coming weeks and months as the organization celebrates fifty years.

I would like to recognize today the valued contributions of this

organization and their staff that they have made to the community and to

the residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Grandy's River Collegiate

Senior Boys Volleyball Team on winning gold at the provincial School

Sports Newfoundland and Labrador volleyball tournament held at Gander on

the weekend of December 4-6.

It took three previous gold medal wins to get to this position.

On October 17 and 18, they captured gold at Corner Brook in the

annual VolleyWest Tournament.

The following weekend at Gander, they took gold again in the

annual VolleyCentral Tournament.

On November 25, Grandy's hosted the annual Western SSNL Regional,

once again winning cold and earning the right to represent their region

at the SSNL Provincials.

This is the first time since 1986 that Grandy's captured gold at the

provincials.

Grandy's is a K-12 school with a total student enrolment of 116

students. These boys, their

head coach, Michael Adey, and assistant coach, Cody Bond are to be

commended for the hours of practice and the hard work they put in to get

to this calibre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending

congratulations to the Grandy's River Collegiate Senior Boys Volleyball

Team and their coaches on winning gold at the Provincial SSNL this past

December.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a community coming together

to help a young lady see her dreams come true.

Recently, Eastern Siding held a contest on VOCM; the winner was to be

rewarded with siding, windows, and doors to renovate their home.

The lucky winner was a lady from Flatrock who had been battling

cancer.

The family received the materials and planned to complete the work.

However, during a visit to her doctor shortly after winning the

contest, the young lady received some bad news.

Mr. Speaker, hearing this, the people of Flatrock did not want her to

wait. Within a couple of

days there were over twenty tradespeople volunteering from the

community. The work started

on Friday morning and by 2:00 o'clock the next day the job was

completed.

Mr. Speaker, it was unbelievable to see the people coming together in

the way they did. Not only

did they complete the work outside, they also completed the trim work

and the painting inside.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking the people from

Flatrock for making a young lady's dream come true.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3, Theresa passed away at the age of

forty-four. Rest in peace my

friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before proceeding

to statements by ministers, I would also like to recognize the Mayor of

Wabush in the gallery today, His Worship Colin Vardy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by

Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

Thanks, I appreciate

that.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. KENT:

He is a good man.

It is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to provide an update on the

provincial government's

Understanding Changes Everything social marketing campaign.

Last May, the campaign was launched with a specific focus to create

greater understanding about mental illness and addictions in an effort

to reduce the stigma often associated with these complex health issues.

As many people may know, living with a stigma that surrounds mental

illness or addiction can often be harder than the illness itself.

The campaign reinforces that despite living with a mental illness

or addiction, people are able to lead fulfilling and successful lives.

Mr. Speaker, the core of the message is that a person is not defined by

a mental illness or addiction as it is not who they are as a whole, and

with greater awareness we can all help eliminate or reduce stigma and

foster an environment that supports recovery and healing.

During the first year of the campaign, television commercials, online

place. It was my privilege

last week during the Premier's Summit on Health Care to announce the

release of a new video which features individuals and family members

with lived experience. It

carries very powerful, direct messages which reinforce that mental

illness and addictions are not weaknesses and that we need to start

talking and continue the conversation.

As the video states, we need to be open to asking for help and

together we can make it better.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage people to visit the campaign's Web site

www.understandnow.ca to view the awareness materials and learn more about mental illness and

addiction. People can also

follow the campaign at Understanding Changes Everything on Facebook or

on Twitter @UnderstandNowNL.

Living with a mental illness or addiction can be an isolating and lonely

experience. I encourage

everyone who is experiencing this in their lives to reach out to a loved

one, a colleague, or a health professional.

The more we are able to make this a part of our everyday

conversation, the better it will be for everyone.

If an individual finds themselves in crisis please call the

Mental Health Crisis Line, twenty-four hours a day, at 1-888-737-4668 to

speak with a mental health professional.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Mental health is a very serious health issue and affects one in

five people in this Province.

This government committed to a new Waterford Hospital in 2007.

That is just still a promise on paper.

We have been waiting for a new eighteen-bed addictions facility

in Harbour Grace for over five years.

The current mental health and addictions services and programs

are just a patchwork of services.

This government has been in power for over ten years and they still have

not formulated a mental health and addictions strategy.

Eight years ago, this government committed to a provincial

substance use strategy to prevent and treat substance abuse.

It was a major undertaking by government.

It was written, it was completed, and then government walked

away. Now government is

saying they are working on another strategy.

It is about time that they finish it.

We hope that when it is released it has concrete initiatives,

unlike some of the many other strategies that they have completed.

Again, it is a serious health issue.

It needs significant attention.

Ten years should have been time to make it a priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to everyone involved in creating the

Understanding Changes Everything campaign.

Thank you to folks with lived experience for sharing their lives

to address stigma, resilience, and hope.

Raising awareness and dialogue is not enough.

Our mental health system in its current state cannot serve the

needs of the people who are begging for help.

Wait-lists for services are growing.

Community groups have minimal and shrinking budgets and are

struggling trying to help people.

If government is truly committed, they must call an all-party

committee to address these critical issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CORNECT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House to recognize seven

leaders inducted into the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission's CEO Safety Charter for 2014.

This distinguished network of leaders from this Province is

committed to safety in the workplace and has taken the steps necessary

to make their workplaces safer.

Mr. Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission's

CEO Safety Charter was established in 2007 with the intention to support

the continuous improvement of healthy and safe workplaces throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

As ambassadors for safer workplaces, CEO Safety Charter signatories have

demonstrated their commitment to preventing accidents and promoting

health and safety in the workplace.

It also sends a message to their employees that they take their

safety seriously.

The 2014 inductees join a network of sixty-two leaders from this

Province that all share the common goal of making Newfoundland and

Labrador the safest province in Canada in which to work.

These CEOs are not only leaders in their respective

organizations; they are also health and safety champions in the

community.

Mr. Speaker, all of these leaders have a passion for safety in the

workplace. They also

recognize that their employees are their most valuable asset and they

must be protected. When an

organization's leadership has the passion, it permeates through the

organization and helps to create a culture of safety throughout the

entire organization which results in a safer environment for all.

The 2014 new members of the CEO Safety Charter are: Mike Barron of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, Glen Skinner of

Pipers, Steve Oliver of PepsiCo Foods Canada, Glenda Janes of St. John

Ambulance Newfoundland and Labrador Council, Terry Croucher of

Newfoundland and Labrador Vegetation Control, Len LeRiche of Safety

Services Newfoundland and Labrador, and Jim Lynch of Commissionaires

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

congratulating this outstanding group of leaders on this tremendous

recognition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Our caucus would also like to congratulate these seven leaders on

being inducted into the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission's CEO Safety Charter for 2014.

Actually, as a side note, my colleague, the Member for Virginia

Waters, was actually one of the inaugural members to that charter.

Mr. Speaker, before becoming a member of this House, I worked for many

years as a safety practitioner myself.

I certainly realized the commitment that it takes to ensure that

we have safe workplaces in our Province.

It is reflected upon the workers, upon the supervisors, and

certainly it would not happen if you did not have the leadership of

these organizations at the very top driving this agenda.

I want to congratulate them for what they have all done in terms

of leadership in health and safety.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the government here could certainly learn

from these leaders. We have

had many issues around health and safety in this Province.

Whether it be the lack of inspections on fishing vessels, whether

it be failure to establish the fish processors safety council which was

announced three years ago, whether it be failure to effectively advocate

for a separate safety regulator for the offshore, whether it be lack of

inspectors in Labrador, and the list goes on.

I encourage the minister to sit down with these leaders and learn what

safety is all about.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am really happy to join with him and the critic from the

Official Opposition in congratulating the new members of Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission's CEO Safety Charter for

their commitment to ensuring their workers are safe.

It is true that leadership plays a key role in promoting a workplace

safety culture. That is why

I hope government will finally live up to its own responsibilities by

addressing the problem of the lack of permanent occupational health and

safety inspectors in Labrador West.

The department has been promising for over one year to hire more,

with no success. I know

recruitment continues, but I have to ask the minister if he has done the

full analysis as to why their attempts to hire these officers have

consistently failed. The

letter we received from him today, Mr. Speaker, does not give me an

answer to that.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday, when talking about the fiscal situation of the Province, the

Premier said we need to start in our own house, get our own business in

order, and lead by example, but he refused to immediately cut the size

of Cabinet and his parliamentary secretaries.

I ask the Premier: If you are really committed to leading by example,

really open and accountable, why are you refusing to immediately cut the

size of your Cabinet and those parliamentary secretaries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I quite clearly articulated to the member opposite, to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to Members of the House of Assembly as well,

that as we go through this challenging time, this very significant

fiscal challenge we face as a result of the falling world oil prices,

that us and other provinces in the country, and other countries around

the world have to face, Mr. Speaker, that as we go through that process,

everything is on the table.

I reiterate that today, that all potential avenues of consideration will

be considered by us as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

While the Premier says that everything is on the table, that all options

are available to be cut, the Deputy Premier, however, has said that

there is no time like the present.

I ask the Premier: If there is no time like the present, as your Deputy

Premier suggests, why won't you put those cost-saving measures in place

today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we are here in the House of Assembly this week because in

order for us to carry out the changes to the House of Assembly I have

talked about three levels of reform.

I have said that I would initiate a process to reform MHA pension

plans. That process is

underway. I have said that I

would initiate a process to modernize how the House of Assembly

operates, to ensure a more effective House and better engagement by all

members of the House. That

process is underway.

The Leader of the Opposition agrees the House is too big.

The Leader of the Third Party agrees the House is too big.

I agree the House is too big.

The Leader of the Opposition is on record last week that he

agrees that if I believe thirty-eight, as the Premier, is the right

number, he is fine with that and he wants to make sure there is a

process. He said yesterday

in his release, Mr. Speaker, we should not move too hastily, that we

should ensure that we do proper process.

That is what we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

If there is anyone in this House knows, when this government acts in

haste we know what we get.

There is a long example of all that, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: In all his responses today, what he has not given me

or given the people in Newfoundland and Labrador is one example just

one example, Mr. Premier, why you will not cut the size of your Cabinet.

Give us one reason you will not do that.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I did not say I was not going to do it.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is quite aware of that.

I never said I was not going to do A, B, or C.

I never said any such thing.

For the member opposite to try and suggest that I made any such comment

is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

What I have said is that I am willing to make the tough

decisions. As the Premier of

this Province, I am willing to make those tough decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, we

will see in the coming days how long the members opposite want to drag

out the process of renewing the House of Assembly, providing for a

better House. For renewing

the House of Assembly and doing what they agree should be done, reduce

the number of seats. He says

he wants to reduce the number of seats, Mr. Speaker, but he is not

willing to go through the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The person in this House who is dragging out things is this Premier, I

say, Mr. Speaker. He is

dragging out and refusing to cut the size of his Cabinet.

I ask the Premier: Give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador one

reason why you cannot and are not cutting the size of your Cabinet

today.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

I will give the

hon. member a reason, Mr. Speaker.

It is because we are doing our due diligence over here when we

are managing the affairs of the Province.

We are considering all avenues that are available to us.

We have a significant problem, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

We have a significant, fiscal problem that we have to deal with,

Mr. Speaker. I can tell you

about the difference in the members opposite and the members on this

side. Over there they are

not willing to deal with it.

Well, we are willing to deal with it on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, and we are going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, everyone on this side of the House, I will be very clear, is

willing to deal with it, and we will deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, government wrote a letter to CETA saying they

have withdrawn from all trade agreements currently under negotiation,

but yesterday government said they had withdrawn from all trade

agreements, not just ones under negotiation.

Now today, government is backtracking saying they have only

withdrawn from agreements under negotiation.

I ask the Premier: With 78 per cent of our provincial economy dependent

on international trade, why have you caused such confusion around the

Province's position on trade?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I can assure you, there is no confusion.

There might be confusion, Mr. Speaker, created by the members

opposite, which they do on a regular basis, but over here we are very

clear. We have trade

partners throughout this country.

Other provinces and the federal government are partners when we

discuss and negotiate trade.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has clearly demonstrated its

respect, or lack thereof, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it

came to the CETA deal. How

can we sit in a room and how can we participate in trade with partners

like the federal government when they will not play fair?

They will not go in there with the best interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in mind.

We went in with an open mind.

We wanted to do it in a way that was above board.

We did it with all good respect to all, Mr. Speaker, and they

pulled the rug out from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

How can we operate with a group like that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, one way you operate with a group like that is when you have an

agreement, you make sure you have remedies that are attached to that and

it is a firm agreement something this government did not have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier one question: Was the minister

who is sitting next to him, on this January 6 letter, when he wrote the

letter to Minister Fast was that letter wrong or was it right?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I think the Premier has been very clear that the terminology used in the

January 6 letter stands, that we have withdrawn all of our support for

current ongoing trade negotiations.

It does not apply to any agreements that have been negotiated.

The only thing we are doing today is clarifying.

Obviously members opposite had some difficulty interpreting the

language in a press release, so we are clarifying today.

The letter I wrote to the federal minister is a letter that

stands. We made an agreement

in good faith. The federal

government is not prepared to honour that.

In response to that, until they are prepared to come back to us

and honour that agreement, we have withdrawn all of our provincial

support to ongoing current negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I remind the minister that it was his comments in the press release

yesterday that said the provincial government is suspending its

participation in all trade agreements, and all trade agreements

currently under negotiation.

It is not only the members over here who have problems with those

remarks, it is people in the public as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with our economy being 78 per cent dependent on

international trade, withdrawing from these trade agreements is a very

dangerous move, especially in the light of our financial situation.

I ask the Premier: What is the cost to the provincial economy by

withdrawing from these trade agreements?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This is a very important topic.

I am glad the member opposite stayed with the topic because what

we had here was a very serious negotiation when we talk about CETA.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had faith in the

federal government to act on our behalf to a point where they were near

the completion of a deal, a comprehensive deal, a CETA deal that would

include all provinces and territories.

As the member would know, it has been said here on many occasions, they

approached Newfoundland and Labrador looking for a concession of a

provincial right enshrined in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the entire CETA package, not just the minimum

processing requirements but there were procurement and energy issues as

well as part of the package, we negotiated the $400 million fund.

I say to the member opposite, we understand the significance of trade

issues but we are not prepared to give things away because of some

public pressure like the member opposite may do if he were ever the

Premier of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister says they are aware of the significance of this decision.

So I ask him, if you are aware of the significance you must know the

value, you must know the impact: What is the value by removing the

provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from these trade

agreements?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

As I was saying, Mr.

Speaker, it is very unfortunate.

We spent three days in Ottawa and, unequivocally, we have the

support of every group and every organization that we met with.

There was clear

interpretation of where Newfoundland and Labrador

stands with respect to CETA, what we negotiated, and what this Province

is entitled to.

Today, in The Globe and Mail ,

there is another large

article supporting Newfoundland and Labrador's

view. The unfortunate thing

is that it is only the Opposition who stands and says: Why don't you

give away the fisheries fund for CETA?

Whereas, the rest of the country says to Prime Minister Harper:

Why don't you settle the fisheries fund so we can move forward with

CETA? That is the

unfortunate thing we are seeing here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, I can assure the minister there is no one on this side of the

House suggesting we give up on the fishery.

It is the actions of this government that has demonstrated they

have given up on the fishery, I say to the Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will

ask the minister one more time, since he claims to understand this value

and the serious impact this could be: What is the value of removing the

provincial government's position in these trade agreements?

What is the value of that?

If you know it, tell the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

I say to the member

opposite, Mr. Speaker, he is a businessman and he has been involved in

lots of these kinds of negotiation activities for many years.

We have withdrawn from ongoing negotiations.

So I ask the member: How do you put a value on something that is

not even finalized or negotiated yet?

I would like to hear the answer to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, in your capacity as Minister of Business, we typically call that a

business plan, Sir, I remind you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BALL:

Yesterday, the

Premier said that other Atlantic Premiers support Newfoundland and

Labrador in its efforts on CETA; however, it appears this is not the

case. The headline from one

media outlet yesterday read: Atlantic Premiers say Newfoundland and

Labrador is on its own in the CETA battle with Ottawa.

I ask the Premier: Which is it?

Do the Premiers support your efforts, or are you disagreeing with

the media reports?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to the member opposite, we fully understand what a business plan

is. It is the business plan

of this government since 2003 that has done wonderful things in this

Province, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

In spite of the

legacy that we were left by previous governments, Mr. Speaker.

We fully understand that.

We also fully understand that a deal is a deal, Mr. Speaker.

We ask the members of the Opposition once again, and the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, stand with the government in fighting on

this deal, not standing with Ottawa to suggest, by some pressure tactic,

that this government should fold its cards and go home and do away with

the future of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador for some

short-term gain for some business-minded people in this Province.

That is not where we are and that is not where we are going to

be.

We stand with the Province and we are standing to fight for the

fisheries deal and for CETA, and we are doing it with the support of the

Atlantic Canadian Premiers, I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I agree with the minister here.

If he listened to what we said publicly about the position with

the federal government on CETA, I do believe it is wrong.

I do stand by the Premier on this.

I said that here in this House at Christmastime.

What you did do, however, was not firm up your agreement with

Ottawa, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement was more important than the finalization of the

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is in a serious financial situation, but the

government has yet to even start their pre-Budget consultations.

In eight of the last ten years, pre-Budget consultations were

announced at this time of the year.

I ask the Premier: If you are so interested in listening to the people

of the Province, why have you not started the Budget consultation

process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I appreciate the member opposite confirming his support for us as a

I appreciate the member opposite doing that.

Sometimes they change their viewpoint as we saw on the electoral

reform legislation that is before us.

He has changed his position on that.

Sometimes it is hard to follow the bouncing ball, I say to you,

Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is

hard to do that.

Mr. Speaker, to his question about the Atlantic Premiers, I can tell you

quite clearly that the Premiers of Atlantic Canada, the Premier of Nova

Scotia, the Premier of New Brunswick, and certainly the Premier of PEI

and the Premier of PEI specifically said, and the others supported very

similar commentary, that they support the position that we have taken

and that if he was in my shoes, he would have taken very similar action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It is tough to follow the Premier from time to time too, I must say.

Just after he announced his new departments just a few months ago

it was the Department of Public Safety.

Just a few weeks after that it was oh no, it is now the

Department of Justice and Public Safety.

The minister sitting next to him just a couple of years ago announced

cuts to Budget. A few weeks

later, guess what happened?

He had changed his mind and they were all welcomed back.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the provincial radiation services report was

supposed to be completed last fall, but government is still keeping it a

secret. We asked for copies

of this report and an update on the process through access to

information, but we have been denied.

I ask the Premier: Since this report was supposed to be completed last

fall, why are you keeping this a secret?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I have no problem making commitments, I can tell you that.

I make decisions and stand by commitments every day.

I say stand by, to the members opposite over there.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition went before

the microphones. He told the

people of the Province that if the Premier wants it to be thirty-eight

seats in the House of Assembly, if he feels that is the number, well, of

course I have no problem with that.

I ask him today: Do you support thirty-eight seats in the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The Premier has already seen our amendments, I say, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, it was only yesterday that he said he would

reach out to us and that he was willing to talk to us about it.

I ask the Premier: Has he done that yet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I

guess what he is saying is that he does not support what he said last

Thursday. Last Thursday he

said he supported thirty-eight seats.

He said that if the election had to be moved for a few weeks, he

was okay with that. He sent

out a release last Thursday night and he said he changed his view then.

In his release yesterday, and based on what he has anticipated to

come before the House, he is changing his position again.

As the member opposite can see, sometimes it is very hard to follow what

the member opposite is doing over there; but I can tell you something

solidly, as I have said repeatedly in this House of Assembly, we have

difficult times ahead of us as a Province, we have fiscal challenges

ahead of us as a Province, and I can tell you that every Member of the

House of Assembly on this side of the House is committed to making

difficult and hard decisions in the best interests of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Premier decided he did not want to answer the

question about the radiation services in Corner Brook.

I have no idea why he would not want to release this report.

I ask the Premier: This was a report that was done last year.

You have denied making this public.

Premier, will you stand on your feet and tell the people of this

Province why you are not releasing this report?

It is about cancer.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I

reported to the House in the fall that there had been a delay with the

provincial radiation review.

I said it would be completed early this year.

I can report to the House today that the review is complete.

A report has been received by staff in the Department of Health

and Community Services in recent days.

We anticipate releasing the report over the next few weeks, once

we have had a chance to review the report and complete our analysis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will you please give us a date?

You have been keeping this report secret, you have been keeping

it from the people of Western Newfoundland, and the minister knows that

he has had this report for some time right now.

I ask the minister: Will you give us a definitive date when you will

release this very important report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

The Leader of the

Opposition is challenging whether I am telling the truth or not.

I can report to this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that we have just

received the report in recent days.

The report is now in the possession of staff of our department.

I intend to get briefed on that report this week.

Analysis is being done, and we will release that provincial

radiation review report as soon as possible.

Members opposite often link this issue somehow to the new West Coast

hospital project. There was

a functional program for cancer care on the West Coast that was received

in late October. We have

confirmed that there will be two radiation bunkers, and we are fully

committed to cancer care on the West Coast.

There is no connection between these issues, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, when discussing the financial crisis of this

Province, the Premier said nine different times that all options are on

the table. Not twenty

minutes later, the Minister of Justice said to the media: As AG, I am

committed to the due administration of justice in this Province, and

that will not be compromised under our government's watch.

I ask the Premier: Is justice on the chopping block?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I do not know how many times I have to try and explain this to the

members opposite, that we have a very serious, financial circumstance as

a result of the downturn in world oil prices.

It is impacting Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is impacting other provinces in Canada.

It is impacting Canada as a country.

It is impacting other countries around the world, Mr. Speaker.

We have very serious considerations to make.

We have to look at all avenues that are available to us to deal

with the circumstances that we face.

Mr. Speaker, what is most important is, as I have said before,

that as a government, I, as Premier, us, as ministers, us, as a caucus,

on the government side of the House are committed to making the very

difficult decisions that we have to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to say to the Premier that

it is hard to get a straight answer on Justice when the minister is not

allowed to sit here and answer questions.

Clearly, we are hearing different messages from the Minister of

Justice and the Premier. We

know the minister cannot sit in the House, but I am wondering if she is

going to the Cabinet meetings.

I ask the Premier: Who is running the Department of Justice, because the

message in here is different than the message out in the media?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, we

are committed to making decisions and the operations of government.

We are committed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We uphold that. We

take that commitment very, very seriously.

We take our work and our responsibilities very, very seriously.

We are going to do the things we have to do to run the

government, run the Province, provide services and supports to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

So that is one part of the member's question.

The second

part is we have a significant financial circumstance that we

have to deal with. We are

also committed to making those very difficult and hard decisions, Mr.

Speaker. We will do it after

we do a full consideration, after we do due diligence to the full

process. We will consider

every avenue available to us, but we are committed to make very

difficult and challenging decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, this is the issue here again that we face today, that the

Premier says one thing in this House and then the unelected minister

goes out and says the exact opposite to the media.

I say to the Premier: Can we take it now that what the Minister of

Justice says outside this House is not what is actually going on and we

should listen to you? We get

confused after what is going on in this Department of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker,

there is not much doubt that the member opposite sometimes gets

confused; but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, look, we are committed to

public safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I tell the member opposite, we are committed to the safety of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We are committed to providing services to the people of the

Province. We are committed

to upholding the responsibilities that we accept as a government, Mr.

Speaker, and we are going to do it to the best of our abilities having

consideration for all of the factors.

That is what we are going to do as a government.

We are going to make those tough decisions, we are going to

continue to govern, we are going to find our way forward, and we are

going to make Newfoundland and Labrador better than it ever has been

before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Senior Crown Attorney for Labrador said the small size of court

facilities in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the lack of security lends

itself to justice not being served.

At times, the victims of sexual assault may be sitting two seats

away from the accused. Along

the Labrador Coast, client attorney meetings are sometimes held in

bathrooms.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Is this what you call improving the

system over the last six months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I

have spent numerous hours in courtrooms throughout my lifetime.

I can tell you when you have circumstances that are very

personal, you have very personal and serious charges that are laid

before the court; I can tell you it is a constant challenge.

It is not unique to Labrador.

It occurs in courtrooms not only throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador but other provinces as well.

There is always a challenge in finding that balance, finding

balance between witnesses and victims who have reasons to attend court,

as well as the accused. We

have to follow the rules of justice in Canada, that are followed

throughout Canada, and we have to find our best way forward.

I agree with the member opposite.

They can be very challenging, difficult times for victims of

crime, for families and witnesses and those involved with crime.

Mr. Speaker, we hope the courts and I trust the courts do

everything they can to protect the interests of all persons who have to

find themselves in court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains has time for a quick question.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker,

prosecution staff is now down to one attorney and one

article clerk.

I ask the minister: Why has the justice system in Labrador gone from bad

to worse in such a short period of time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader for a quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I do not think there is a quick reply to such a sensitive issue, but I

will certainly do my best.

As I said to the hon. member yesterday, it is a sensitive issue and it

is a very important issue.

We recognize the challenges we are facing with staffing the court system

and the Crown prosecutor's office in Labrador, in particular.

As I committed to him yesterday, we will work together with him

and with our human resources department to secure a full complement of

Crown prosecutors (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

The amount of work and financial resources involved in redrawing

electoral boundaries is immense.

The electoral office already faces a critical lack of staff and

technical support.

I ask the Premier: How many new staff and resources will be needed to

carry out the extra work that will be caused by Bill 42, and how much is

it going to cost?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Realigning electoral boundaries in Newfoundland and Labrador is a huge

piece of work. We

acknowledge that. We also

acknowledge that with appropriate resources this is a task to be

undertaken by the commission and completed within 120 days.

What we understand as well, after this commission does this piece of

work in fact, while the commission is doing its work, Mr. Powers, the

Chief Electoral Officer for the Province, will be doing a piece of work

as well to make sure that we are ready for a general election in the

fall of 2015. We have

indicated very clearly, as with this commission and with past

commissions, that we will provide appropriate resources to ensure that

this piece of work gets completed on time so that we can have a fall

general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I

ask the minister then: What piece of the $2.5 million they hope to save

is going to be spent in doing the work of the commission and the work

that Elections Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have to do?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

I think, Mr.

Speaker, it is extremely important and the member asks a very good

question. It is obvious from

her question there is a lack of understanding of the process.

There is a piece of legislation on the books today called the Electoral

Boundaries Act that says this piece of work was going to be done in 2016

anyway. This is not a piece

of work that was never anticipated.

This was a project that would have to be undertaken twelve months

from now.

What we are saying is rather than wait twelve months from now, let's do

it today and have it ready for the 2015 election.

It is not money that would never have ever been spent.

What we are saying is let's spend it today to get better value

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so we can have it in for a fall

election in 2015.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I

ask the Premier: If the commission finds that the thirty-eight districts

that he wants are not going to be enough to comply with the act, which

says that every elector should have equal access to this House, will the

Premier go along with the decision of the commission or ignore it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

One of the things

that the member has raised here is whether or not and what is a

reasonable number to provide reasonable representation for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Frequently, we find ourselves comparing ourselves to the rest of

the country. Members often

stand in this House all the time and say: How come you are not doing

what they are doing in Ontario, or how come you are not doing what they

are doing in Alberta?

Mr. Speaker, we had a look at what they are doing in the rest of the

country and very clearly if you just look at the number of people

elected in the assemblies across Canada and the number of voters they

represent, Newfoundland and Labrador is on the lowest end of that scale.

Across this country, one member can represent a constituency of 10,000

or 15,000 people quite easily, and provide adequate representation.

The question becomes: Why wouldn't we be able to do that here in

Newfoundland and Labrador as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Premier said everything is on the table.

With this current economic uncertainty, people are rightfully

worried about their jobs and providing for their families.

Bill 42 will throw everything into chaos right before the

election, when what is needed right now is stability.

I ask the Premier: Why this desperate move right now before an election?

How exactly can this be in the best interest of the people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the

reason why we find ourselves in this circumstance is because of the

world oil prices, very simply.

Everyone is quite aware of what has happened in the turn in oil

prices through last summer, last fall, and since OPEC had their meetings

in November.

We had some of Canada's leading economists and best informed people in

the country tell us after OPEC met, they said give it a couple of

weeks, ten days, two weeks, and the markets should settle down.

Mr. Speaker, the markets still have not settled down and experts

around the world had predicted it would take a couple of weeks and

markets would settle down.

The markets are still not settled.

We know the federal government are not going to do their Budget

until April. They have some

very serious challenges to face, Mr. Speaker.

We have very serious challenges to face as a Province, and it is

all related to the price of oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for

AN HON. MEMBER:

Bay of

Islands.

MR. SPEAKER:

Bay of Islands.

Thank you.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, that

is one of the problems in this House; when you are quiet, people forget

you.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be

appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to the electoral districts in

the Province; and

WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of

electoral seats; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the

necessary public consultations; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the

necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;

and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral

districts; and

WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint

the electoral boundaries commission early;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or

without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries

commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not

interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a

provincial general election in 2015.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present this petition today.

I am going to speak today on behalf of the District of Bay of

Islands. As we all know,

next year is supposed to be when the electoral boundaries review would

take place, in 2016. There

is an important point being missed here in this House, Mr. Speaker, by

the government, and they refuse to bring it up.

In 2016 there will be a new census.

I heard the Premier himself say we have to make a decision for the next

ten years. So we are going

to be making a decision in this House of Assembly on information from

2011, information on population and demographics from 2011, and not wait

for the information which would truly reflect where people live in this

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is fundamentally wrong.

I truly feel this is to push the election back.

I truly feel that. I

said it publicly. This has

nothing to do with changing the boundaries because if it did, you would

follow the law and give the commission proper time.

Mr. Speaker, when we have a government that is going to push this

through without up-to-date information, I think it is fundamentally

wrong for the government to do that.

The government has a majority, it is going to be done, but I just

feel it is fundamentally wrong until we get new information.

Thank you, 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 Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of

members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all the provinces in

Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of

constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;

and

WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from

forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador of an estimated $2.5 million per

year totalling at least some $10 million over the course of a four-year

term; and

WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will

continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest

number of members per capita; and

WHEREAS it has been common practice for the government of the day to set

the target for the number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and

WHEREAS in moving ahead now without needless delay, there is ample time

in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as much

time as was required when this process last happened in 1994; and

WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of

our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four

years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased

debt, or reduced services; and

WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a

reduction of the number of the Members of the House of Assembly and

ought to stand by their words by enabling this independent process to

proceed now, without needless delay;

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

the House of Assembly to move forward now, without needless delay, to

amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission

will be appointed to facilitate a reduction in the number of seats in

the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the

next general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS PERRY:

As in duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it was very important that I stand up today and present

this petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS PERRY:

As an elected Member

of the House of Assembly, I have been receiving a lot of commentary from

constituents and people I represent about the boundaries change.

I have heard for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, the views of

people at large who really feel the House of Assembly is too large.

You look at the workload, Mr. Speaker, of a Member of the House of

Assembly. There are a lot of

considerations that go into the boundaries and these

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member her speaking time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MS ROGERS:

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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS mental health programs and services

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you, gentlemen.

WHEREAS mental health programs and services are crucial to the health of

individuals, families, and communities; and

WHEREAS despite mental health services being delivered by government,

community-based organizations and informally by families and friends,

there are still large gaps in services and programs in the Province; and

WHEREAS despite these efforts, stigma remains a significant barrier for

people needing to access mental health services, and participate in

society; and

WHEREAS new directions and priorities are needed for mental health

programs and service delivery, especially for unique groups such as

youth, Aboriginal people, immigrants and refugees; and

WHEREAS deep fiscal cuts in the last budget have placed a great strain

on organizations delivering mental health services in the Province;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately strike an

all-party committee on mental health which, through extensive public

consultation, will review the current state of provincial mental health

services, receive expert testimony on best to better serve the needs of

all the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in the House a number of times presenting this

petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have thousands of signatures.

In the past week, Mr. Speaker, with the government's introduction of

Bill 42, one of the rationales the government has used as well is that

they want to better use the Members of the House of Assembly by using

all-party committees, standing committees, select committees.

The Official Opposition has said the same.

In response to this petition, in response to consultation with people

all over the Province, both health care providers and users of our

mental health system and the general population, they have asked for an

all-party select committee on mental health.

The Minister of Health has said that he will work with this

committee.

Mr. Speaker, in response to that, tomorrow I will be presenting a

private member's motion asking government to strike a select committee

on mental health. If this

government is true to its word, if the Official Opposition is true to

its word, they will both support this call for an all-party select

committee on mental health.

To do so would be in contradiction to what they have both said in the

media and in this House in the past week.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to present this petition on

behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on a very pressing

need and what can be lifesaving measures.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I stand again to present another petition, Mr. Speaker.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be

appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of

electoral seats; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the

necessary public consultations; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the

necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;

and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral

districts; and

WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint

the electoral boundaries commission early;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or

without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries

commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not

interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a

provincial general election in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune

stand up on a petition. This

is very important for the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

First of all, there is talk there about being independent.

Is it independent when you are mandated to do something?

How much independence do you have?

I just want to explain, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

When you are mandated and you have a certain number, ten, there

is no consultation. The

District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune and she is unaware of it; it is

obvious she is unaware of this there was a variance of 10 per cent,

and the commission can make a recommendation up to 25 per cent.

The district that it was done for was Fortune Bay Cape

La Hune.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

To represent the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

So, when the member wants to stand in this House and present a

petition, she obviously does not even know the regulations.

She does not know the mandate that was done in 2004.

She does not know what it was.

When the regulation was put in to give the commission independence of

various ten up to twenty-five, it was the rural districts like Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune. The

member is standing here now saying forget the people in my district.

Go ahead and do what this government wants.

The residents of my district, it does not matter.

It does not matter about anything.

It does not matter.

You should be go back and consult with your people.

Go back with the people.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS PERRY:

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune on a point of order.

MS PERRY:

I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I just said the member opposite is putting words in my mouth.

That is not what I said.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands to continue.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is go back and consult with the people in your district

because at the time I was in this part of the government.

That was one of the districts that when that revision was made up

to 25 per cent, it was for that district.

Check with your residents who live there.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. LITTLE:

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 Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of

members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all provinces in

Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of

constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;

and

WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from

forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador an estimated $2.5 million per

year totalling some $10 million over the course of a four-year term; and

WHEREAS even with such a reduction

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South to continue.

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will

continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest

number of members per capita; and

WHEREAS it has been the common practice for the government of the day to

set the target number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and

WHEREAS in moving ahead now without needless delay there is ample time

in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as a

matter of time as was required when this process last happened in 1994;

and

WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of

our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four

years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased

debt, or reduced services; and

WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a

reduction of the number of Members of the House of Assembly and ought to

stand by their words by enabling the independent process to proceed now,

without needless delay;

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

the House of Assembly to move forward now, without needless delay, to

amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission

will be appointed to facilitate a reduction of the number of seats in

the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the

next general election.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be

appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of

electoral seats; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the

necessary public consultations; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the

necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;

and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral

districts; and

WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint

the electoral boundaries commission early;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or

without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries

commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not

interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a

provincial general election in 2015.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was signed by residents in the District of

Lake Melville. I would like

to refer to Labrador for a couple of minutes, if I can.

We have also heard the mayor who is in the gallery from

Wabush come out in support of four districts in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, currently Labrador has four seats out of forty-eight which

makes up 8.3 per cent of the total complement of the Legislature.

Should Labrador's numbers drop to two of thirty-eight seats, as

proposed by this government, Labrador will constitute 5 per cent of the

total complement of our Legislature.

Should Labrador stay at four out of thirty-eight seats, Labrador

will constitute 11 per cent of the total Legislature.

Nowhere close to 50 per cent, not by any means.

I cannot see how any government can reduce the number of seats in

Labrador due to a broad range of reasons: diversity, geography, culture.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West has travelled 1,800

kilometres to get home. Some

districts in this Province, it is 1.8 kilometres and you are through the

district into another one.

It takes me two days to travel home from St. John's two days.

It takes me six days to go through my district, and I have six

communities. It takes me six

days. If you look at the

size and the demographics, there is no way that anyone can see the

number of seats that are already low certainly being a Labradorian, I

would like to see 50 per cent of the seats in Labrador; but four seats

out of forty-eight, two out of thirty-eight, or four out of thirty-eight

is nowhere close to any (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his speaking time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

To the hon. House

of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be

appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of

electoral seats; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

will have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary

public consultations; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the

necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;

and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral

districts; and

WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint

the electoral boundaries commission early;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or

without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries

commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not

interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a

provincial general election in 2015.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, based on

section 3.1 of the House of Assembly's act, as to

the resignation of a Premier, there are people in this Province who have

called for a general election in the past year; the Official Opposition

has not done so. Based on

the non-crisis of DarkNL and the fiasco of Humber Valley Paving, a large

portion of the population of this Province has called for a general

election; the Official Opposition has not done so.

Based on some of the Premier's appointments after taking office, a large

portion of the population of this Province have called for a general

election; the Official Opposition has not done so.

Mr. Speaker, based on the number of resignations from government,

four, five, six, seven and subsequent by-elections, a large

section of

the population of this Province has called for a general election; the

Official Opposition has not done so.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, and those of my colleagues, are demanding

for the legislated election to take place this fall.

This time, so are the members of the Official Opposition.

We demand an election in the fall of 2015.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. DINN:

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 Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of

members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all the provinces in

Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of

constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;

and

WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from

forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador of an estimated $2.5 million per

year totalling some $10 million over the course of a four-year term; and

WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will

continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest

number of members per capita; and

WHEREAS it has been the common practice for the government of the day to

set the target number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and

WHEREAS in moving ahead now, without needless delay, there is ample time

in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as much

time as was required when this process last happened in 1994; and

WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of

our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four

years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased

debt, or reduced services; and

WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a

reduction of the number of Members of the House of Assembly and ought to

stand by their words by enabling this independent process to proceed now

without needless delay;

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

the House of Assembly to move forward now without needless delay to

amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission

will be appointed to facilitate a reduction of the number of seats in

the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the

next general election.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have given a petition in the

House of Assembly. It is not

the first. When I was on

city council in St. John's, oftentimes I had petitions for an issue and

against. We are here today

presenting in favour of our move here as a government.

I feel myself that the people in this Province want this change to take

place. They want it to take

place as soon as possible, not 2019.

To delay doing the amendments in the Legislature now would mean

that nothing would happen to this issue until the election in 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his speaking time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I have a petition.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be

appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of

electoral seats; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the

necessary public consultations; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the

necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;

and

WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016

have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the

geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral

districts; and

WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint

the electoral boundaries commission early;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or

without the completion of work of the electoral boundaries commission as

a result of appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with

the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a provincial general

election in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of people this weekend, from

some of the people who have signed petitions.

One of the petitions I am going to present today is signed by

people from Clarenville; the signatures on this are all from

Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, let's make no mistake, the people I have heard from this

past weekend have told me they believe this is a very political move by

government; a very political move.

An effort to push the election out to 2016 is the belief, which

is the reason we have this petition.

Mr. Speaker, they know that if an election were called today

government would lose. Based

on the polling, government would lose.

So, there is politics behind this move today.

We all agree with reducing the number of electoral districts in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, but there is politics behind the legislation that

is put before the floor of the House of Assembly.

The proof of that is in the petitions presented by members of

government. They have every

right to present a petition, Mr. Speaker, every right to present a

petition, as does any Member of this House of Assembly, but it is the

first time, since I have been a member of this House, that I have seen a

government member present a petition.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else.

I have looked at the signatures on two of the petitions.

While the signatures on the petition that I am presenting today

are all from Clarenville, they are members of the general public.

The two petitions that were presented today by government

members, Mr. Speaker, are party executive members and party staffers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Shame,

shame!

MR. OSBORNE:

Now, Mr. Speaker,

tell me there is no politics behind what is happening in this House,

because there is. There is

absolute politics behind what is happening today in this House of

Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his speaking time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs, that we move to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that we move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye,

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I do not have a petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in this House today as the

Member for the District of Trinity Bay de Verde.

As a person who has been involved in politics for more than two

decades, it is most humbling to sit in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, my first thank you goes to my family; my wife, Nadine, and

my two sons, Benjamin and Alexander.

Their support to me has been unwavering.

Also, to my extended family and friends, who played a major role

in helping me get to where I am today.

Many thank yous also to my hardworking campaign team and my loyal

supporters for believing in me.

Without them, my successful outcome would not have been possible.

To the people of Trinity Bay de Verde, thank you for your

strong vote of confidence in me, and I look forward to representing you

in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in the community of Heart's Delight Islington,

on the south side of Trinity Bay.

I have been privileged to spend my entire life there with my

family who operates a small business for over thirty years.

Both my parents, Steve and Marilyn Crocker, are also lifelong

residents of the district, where myself and my brother Brian were

raised.

Mr. Speaker, while I am new to the House of Assembly, as I alluded to

earlier, I am no stranger to politics.

I first became interested in current affairs in government and

democracy at a young age.

Most here will remember the stand that former Premier Wells took on the

Meech Lake Accord. It was at

this time, while still in high school, I chose to become involved in the

Liberal Party.

I became actively involved in many boards and committees in the years

that followed. I served as a

member of the Heart's Delight Islington Volunteer Fire Department for

more than ten years. I have

also served as community representative on school councils for my former

high school, Holy Trinity Regional High, Epiphany Elementary, and most

recently, Crescent Collegiate.

I also served as a board member on the Trinity-Conception

Business Development Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, Trinity Bay de Verde is a collection of more than thirty

communities from Hopeall on the Trinity shore to Salmon Cove on the

Conception Bay North side of the peninsula.

The district has a population of 8,600 residents.

I would be remiss, if I did not mention the district is expecting

unprecedented growth in the next 120 days.

Trinity Bay de Verde is home to the historical Heart's Content

Provincial Historic Site where in July, 1866, the first permanent

transatlantic cable connecting Europe to North America was hauled

ashore. In 2016, next year,

will mark 150 years since that historic day.

Interestingly enough, one of the major issues in the district

today is communications, or lack thereof.

The inability for residents of Trinity Bay de Verde, 150 years

later, to not be able to use cellphones is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, we have key industries and employers in the District of

Trinity Bay de Verde, but none more important than the fishery is the

reason our settlers came to those shores, and it is the reason we are

there today. The fishing

industry is the backbone of the Bay de Verde peninsula.

The peninsula has the Province's largest inshore shellfish

landings in ports such as Old Perlican and Bay de Verde.

There are also more than 1,000 people employed in the remaining fish

processing facilities in the district.

We must remain vigilant to ensure continued success of this

industry, not only for the people of Trinity Bay de Verde but for the

entire Province as a whole.

One missing piece in ensuring the preservation and growth of our fishery

is joint management, or lack thereof, with the federal government.

We have long talked about joint management with the Government of

Canada. The time has come to

bring this to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, outside the fishery there is an ever-expanding tourism

industry on the beautiful Bay de Verde peninsula, one which includes the

Heart's Content cable station, the Baccalieu Island Bird Sanctuary,

Cabot Rock in Grates Cove, Northern Bay Sands, Salmon Cove Sands, and

our only golf course, Pitcher's Pond Golf Course, which is a picturesque

nine-hole located in Whiteway.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my entire life, Trinity Bay de Verde has been

and always will be home. We

have many challenges, but we also have many opportunities.

Opportunities that we must continue to invest in, like our

fishery, tourism, and small business.

Mr. Speaker, I was raised in a family where my parents and grandparents

were small business owners.

I, too, would later continue in the entrepreneurial field.

I firmly believe that as we look forward, we must ensure we

diversify our economy. One

of the key elements of diversifying our economy is through small and

medium-sized business.

One of the biggest hurdles faced by small and medium-sized business in

our Province today is red tape.

Ironically, this happens to be Red Tape Reduction Week.

Repeatedly, we have heard small

business owners asking for support in this area.

I urge the government to work with small and medium-sized

business owners and groups like our Board of Trade, the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, among others, to ensure that the

long overdue improvements are implemented.

Mr. Speaker, like all hon. members who enter this House of Assembly, we

do so at the will of the people, and our time here comes in many

different durations. I

firmly believe that all members of this hon. House are here for one

primary reason: to serve our towns, our districts, and ultimately, the

people of our Province, Newfoundland and Labrador.

During my tenure as Member for the District of Trinity Bay de

Verde, I commit to representing the people I serve to the best of my

ability.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as a member who has had a lifelong love for

democracy and good government, it is with great pride and a humble

spirit that I take my place in the Newfoundland and Labrador

Legislature, along with my forty-seven colleagues.

It is a particular honour to serve my district as a member of the

Official Opposition under the leadership of the Member for Humber

Valley, who I had the privilege to work with prior to me taking my seat

here in the House of Assembly.

Having had the opportunity to work closely with our leader, I am

confident that under his leadership great things are in store for this

Province.

I now look forward to working with him again in a new capacity as a

member of his caucus, the Official Opposition a caucus made up of a

group of extraordinary individuals with diverse backgrounds from all

corners of our Province from the northern tip of Labrador to our

Province's capital city.

All of us have come together as a united team to offer a strong

alternative to the people of our Province.

I look forward to participating in lively debate and discussions

on important matters affecting the people of our Province and working

with the members of this hon. House to advance the agenda for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs, that we adjourn debate on Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is

that debate be now adjourned on Address in Reply.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, debate adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, and to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act,

Bill 42, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act,

Bill 42, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Government House Leader

shall have leave to introduce Bill 42 and that the said bill be now read

a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay'.

Carried

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, An

Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, carried.

(Bill 42)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

(Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time

presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I would ask leave from Opposition members to proceed in calling the said

bill for the second reading.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is there leave to

proceed to second reading?

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The

Official Opposition is prepared to give leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank my colleagues opposite for providing leave.

At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper, Bill 42,

An Act

To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

The said bill is moved by myself and seconded by the hon. the Premier

that the bill be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electoral

Boundaries Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It is a real pleasure today to be able to introduce Bill 42.

There has been a lot of discussion in the Province since last

week when the Premier made an announcement last Friday that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador under his watch as the Premier

was going to introduce some legislation and some actions to reform the

function of the House of Assembly.

There were three components to that, Mr. Speaker.

One of them was in asking you as the Speaker to convene a meeting

of the Standing Orders Committee to look at all the Standing Orders that

govern the rules of operation of the House that sets out the procedures

for dealing with various aspects of the House operation, with a view of

ensuring that the House is effective and efficient and provides an

opportunity for mass participation by all members of this House in the

legislative process. The

second part of that was to ask you as the Speaker, through to the

Management Commission, to start a process to reform the pensions for

Members of the House of Assembly.

The third one, which is the subject of this discussion today and

the subject of Bill 42, is

An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.

Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I just want to

remind people that Bill 42 is a bill that we are bringing into the House

to make amendments to an already existing piece of legislation.

To create some context for the discussion, Mr. Speaker, I want to

just provide some commentary, if I could, about the Electoral Boundaries

Act.

This act goes back a few years, back to 1973 in fact.

Prior to that, from 1949 when we joined Confederation with

Canada, the process for deciding the number of seats that we would have

was a process partially driven by the House of Assembly, but mostly

determined by the government of the day.

They would determine how many seats we would have and there would

be an election held based on that decree of the number of seats we would

have.

In 1973, this piece of legislation was introduced, the Electoral

Boundaries Act. Since that

time, this act has guided the process of determining the boundaries for

electoral districts in this Province.

What we are doing here today is bringing in some amendments to

this already existing piece of legislation.

This legislation makes a number of provisions.

It makes a provision for a commission to be appointed with a

chairperson. That

chairperson is decided by the chief justice of the Appeal Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, there is a certainty that this is an unbiased process.

It is not influenced by political pressures.

It does not favour one political party or the other.

You have an independent chairperson appointed by the chief

justice.

In fact, the chairperson should be picked and selected from among the

judges of the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division; however, if at

some point in time when this commission is put together a judge is not

available from either one of those courts, then it is permissible for

the chief justice, but it still must be done by the chief justice.

The chief justice then can look into the greater community and

determine someone who is capable, confident, and qualified to do this

piece of work; they can appoint that individual who is not a sitting

judge, or a retired judge.

The process, Mr. Speaker, is that chief justice, when asked by the

House, will then make sure that person gets appointed within a

thirty-day period.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, that chairperson does not work by

themselves. There are four

other people. It is a

commission of five. There are four other people who get appointed to

this commission, and these four people are people who are appointed by

the Speaker.

Generally, what will happen in the course of putting this commission

together, members of the Opposition parties and members of the governing

party will put forward names, make recommendations to the Speaker as to

who should be appointed to the commission, to join the chairperson of

the commission to fill out the slate of five.

That is exactly what will be happening here.

There is no change in process.

The exact same process will unfold in the proposed amendment to Bill 42.

There is absolutely no change in what takes place in how the

commission gets appointed, who is on the commission, and the role that

they play no change at all.

In addition to that, what will happen, Mr. Speaker, they will be

in a course of providing direction to the commission.

Since the very beginning, in 1973, and each time since then that this

commission has been convened because this commission has been convened

in 1973 for the first time, again in 1983, again in 1993, again in 1995,

again in 2003, and again in 2006.

We have already had this six times, so this will be the seventh

time. This will be the

seventh commission that has been put in place because this exercise has

occurred six previous times.

What we are following here is a well-established process.

The commission in the legislation that already exists, Mr.

Speaker we are not adding this.

The legislation already provides for.

The legislation will tell the commission how many seats there

will be. This is nothing

new.

In the past, for example, the commission has said how the legislation

has, on a couple of occasions, said there will be forty-eight.

Another time the commission was given direction to make it

fifty-two. So the commission

has always had direction based on the legislation.

The legislation has fixed a number and said you will divide the

Province by X number of seats.

That is the process to establish a quotient: how many people will

exist in each electoral district, how many voters will exist in each

electoral district.

The legislation has historically defined the number of seats that will

exist. The commission has

then suggested that you take the population of the Province and divide

it by that fixed number of seats.

That is how you determine how many people will be in a district.

Then you decide to carve up the district, create your boundaries

based on that kind of a configuration using the number of seats that the

legislation provided for you and then doing a simple calculation and

dividing that number into the population of the Province to establish a

quotient. That is the

process. This is laid out in

legislation. There is no

change this time than it was in the past.

The same process is followed each time.

We are not changing anything new here in the process, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said, the commission then reports back to the House of

Assembly, provides a report to the Minister of Justice, and it is tabled

in this House. The process

is mapped out in the current legislation.

When we read the amendments to the legislation in Bill 42, it is

important that members read Bill 42, which is amending an already

existing piece of legislation, to look at the legislation itself,

because not all sections are being amended.

Much of it is intact.

Not much changed, Mr. Speaker; a couple of significant points.

One is that the commission has been told there will be

thirty-eight seats. The

commission has also been told that they will do their work in 120 days

from the date on which the Chair gets appointed.

So that is a bit of a change, Mr. Speaker.

The 120 days is a change.

The other thing that has changed this time from the past is in the past,

as I have said, the number of seats were different.

Back in 2006, the direction in the legislation was to have

forty-eight seats. The

direction in 1995 was to have forty-eight seats.

The direction in 2003 was to have forty-eight seats.

The direction in 1983 was to have fifty-two.

The direction in 1973 was to have fifty-one.

So there has always been a direction provided by the legislation.

There was one exception to that.

Back in 1993 the legislation gave a it is an interesting one,

Mr. Speaker. I will spend a

bit of time talking about that one because in 1993 the legislation said

to the commission, we want you to go away and do your piece of work.

We want you to decide whether there should be forty-six, or there

should be forty, or forty-two, or forty-four.

So the commission was given an option in 1993.

At that time there was a Liberal Administration in place.

The commission spent a great deal of time, did its work, and did a

masterful piece of work, Mr. Speaker.

They took some time, talked to people, had some consultations,

and did a great analysis of the distribution of the population of the

Province. They came back and

said, based on your instructions, we are recommending that there be

forty-four seats in the Province forty-four seats.

That was the one and only time that a commission was given a choice of a

range; only one time of the six times this has happened.

Only one time was it given a range.

That was in 1993 with a Liberal Administration in place.

The commission, the justice involved chairing the commission,

together with the other members of the commission, produced a report and

said, we suggest that you have forty-four districts in this Province.

The Liberal Administration at that time said, we disagree with that.

We do not think there should be forty-four seats.

We are not going to accept your recommendation.

We do not think you did a good enough job.

We do not want anymore even though the legislation clearly said

pick forty-six, forty-two, forty, or forty-four, and they picked

forty-four. The Liberal

Administration at that time said, we do not want that; we disagree with

your total. Even though we

gave you the instructions to do that, we still disagree with you and we

are not going to accept your report.

We are going to throw it out, discard it, forget about it, ignore

it.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What year

was that?

MR. WISEMAN:

That was in 1993.

They needed to do it.

They still needed to have a boundaries commission do a piece of work.

Rather than have a piece of legislation like we are using here today to

guide a process, the government of that day, the Liberal Administration

of that day, the Premier and the Cabinet got together upstairs in the

Cabinet room. They went

upstairs on the eighth floor, got together around a Cabinet table, and

said chief justice I will not name the man so-and-so just did a

piece of work for us and we do not agree with it.

We are not going to accept it.

Do you know something? We

are not even going to go back into the Legislature and ask the

Legislature to amend the legislation to give a new direction.

We are going to arbitrarily take it upon ourselves, in a

strong-armed way, because we are the government, we are the Cabinet, and

I am the Premier. I am going

to decree I am going to issue an MC; I am going to issue a Minute of

Council.

I am going to ignore the House of Assembly.

I am going to ignore everybody down there who is elected whether

you are in government or whether you are in Opposition.

I do not really care what they think.

I am going to ignore what the Members of the House of Assembly

really think and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador really

think because I am the Premier.

Me and my Cabinet are here, and we are going to decide what is

going to happen.

Do you know what they did? I

will tell you what they did now.

They issued a Minute of Council.

Do you know what they said?

They said: We are going to go out and pick another judge.

We are going to find a judge who might be more friendly to our

wishes, so we are going to pick a judge.

We are going to pick a judge and we are going to have that person

do what we tell him. Here is

what we are going to tell him: We want you Mr. New Judge to go out and

we want you to divide the Province up into forty-eight seats.

Ignore the forty-four, ignore the legislation, but I am giving

you a command. I am giving

you a command to run out today and carve this Province up into

forty-eight seats.

Ignore what anybody else tells you.

In fact, not only did they say ignore what everybody else tells

you, we do not want you to do any consultations.

What we want you to do is we want you to refer to what the last

group did. Whatever

consultations they did, that is enough; don't you bother to do any.

We want you to come back now Mr. Judge and do it quickly, too; do not

go wasting any time. Get

this done as fast as you can and get this back and only look at what we

are telling you. Carve the

Province up into forty-eight seats.

Ignore what the previous group did, and do not talk to anybody,

no consultation, and give us a report and then we will accept that.

This is our seventh time out doing this.

So, in our history we have only had one time back in 1993 under a

Liberal Administration where we had a very draconian, a very arbitrary

way of imposing on the people a process that was not founded in

legislation.

When I speak to the merits and the value of the legislation, Mr.

Speaker, I felt obligated to qualify that because the legislation has

not always been followed or adhered to

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER

(Littlejohn):

Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN:

because

somebody had arbitrarily decided that we were going to do it very

differently down the road.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, this has been the process.

Since 1973 and I might add that was a Conservative government

who brought this legislation in, in 1973.

We have had a significant history of being guided in a process, a

legitimate process, using a piece of legislation that we are still

following today.

When members start talking about, in a cynical way, suggesting somehow

or other that this process is flawed or suggesting in some way that this

process has the chance of being manipulated by politicians, this is a

process that has been established since 1973.

Tried six times in the past.

One I acknowledged was flawed, but the other five were perfectly

in compliance with the piece of legislation.

A couple of things that we are doing slightly different this time is we

are looking at imposing a timeline on the commission to do their piece

of work. I say, Mr. Speaker,

let's think about the timeline that has been challenged and people are

suggesting maybe 120 days is too long a period of time to do the work.

Is it reasonable? Can

it be done in 120 days? If

you consider, Mr. Speaker, the task at hand, five bright, intelligent

people turning their head to a task supported by a capable, competent

staff, this is a piece of work that requires some great analytical

skills, some great statistical analysis, some mapping that needs to

occur.

Back in 1973 when this all started, and I suspect that probably up into

the mid-1990s, a lot of this was calculators and hand calculations and

trying to draw maps on drafting boards.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have GISs.

We have all kinds of computing technologies and capabilities.

In fact, there are people in Crown Lands who do mapping all the

time. We have people in the

statistical branch of the Department of Finance who, on an ongoing

basis, are doing profiles of the Province in population forecast,

projections, and mapping the Province in many ways for many different

purposes. These are things

that we have a group of professional people doing this all of the time.

Engineering consulting firms around the Province have built tremendous

capacity in doing this type of work on an ongoing basis.

So there is tremendous capacity to support this kind of

initiative, but when you look at the 120 days what are we talking

about? Four months.

So there are four months to do this.

Let me just read for you a page from the 2006 report.

In 2006, the group of people who did the 2006 report, when they

finished the report, they had made a couple of comments.

They made a comment about the census information that they had

available to use, and they made a suggestion as to what should happen

when the next census information came out.

It is in that context that I want to cite from the report.

These are five people, chaired by the hon. John O'Neill, Chairperson,

just finished the piece of work that they had gone through.

They knew exactly what was involved.

They knew how long it took.

They knew what challenges they had.

They knew what technology they used.

They knew what supports they should have had or could have had

and would need to have, but with all of that, with that full knowledge

they say let me read, Mr. Speaker, and I quote as they suggest that

a new commission would look at this boundary issue when new census

information becomes available, and that they be charged with the

responsibility to provide its recommendations within six months

thereafter.

The same five people who just spent months doing this piece of work

understands fully what is involved here, understands the scope of work,

the task, the challenges, the complexity.

They were confident in signing a paper, signing a report.

In fact, this sentence is right above their signatures; you could

not miss it right above their signatures.

They say that a future commission should be tasked with doing

this report and bringing forward its recommendations within not six

months, but within six months.

Now we have a group of people saying that this can be done within six

months. We are suggesting

here, appropriately resourced which it will be this is a piece of

work that this commission should be able to do within four months, or by

four months. We are going to

have a deadline of 120 days.

That is four months.

So you have one group saying within six so that is somewhere between

four and six.

It might be five; it might be five-and-a-half.

It might be four; it might be four-and-a-half.

We are saying we are going to resource it up.

We are going to make the technology available.

We are going to make the expertise available to do it within 120

days. It is doable, I say,

Mr. Speaker. This group of

people here said in fact, it is interesting, one of the people on this

was a former Liberal Premier.

Obviously he believed, at that time, that this work can be done

within six months or he would not have said it.

Mr. Speaker, that should be, to some degree, I suspect,

a comfort. It should be a

comfort to some people that this is a piece of work that obviously can

be done within six months.

We think it can be done in four.

The changes here are not huge in terms of the time frame.

Let's recap now before we move on too far.

We have the same independent process of a commissioner appointed

by the chief justice of the appeal court.

We have four other people appointed by the Speaker.

We all know how the Speaker gets the names, from nominations from

the three parties in this House the same process as in the past.

They will be adequately provided with resources.

They have to report to the Justice Minister.

The Justice Minister will table the report in the House of

Assembly. That is all mapped

out in the current legislation.

What else are we changing?

What else is unique this time in 2015 than would it normally be?

This came up in Question Period today because there was a

question from a member opposite that would seem to suggest that we are

wasting a lot of money. Why

are we doing this? We do not

need to be doing this. This

is something that we ordinarily would not do, so this is going to be new

money. In times of

restraint, why are we spending it?

I just want to repeat, I guess, the answer that I gave

in Question Period. This is

a piece of legislation. This

act exists and we are not going to break the law.

We are not going to break the rules.

It does not matter who sits in this House.

We are going to follow the law.

We are going to follow the rules.

This law says that in 2016 this is going to happen.

It will happen again in 2026.

It is going to happen anyway.

This is something that we would have had to build on for next

year. It was an event that

was going to occur.

All we said given the fact that all political parties

have said we think that the House can function with less people than

currently exists, on that premise then why don't we go ahead and do it

today? We have an election

coming up and I will speak to this in a moment.

There seems to be a pre-occupation with the notion that the

election will not happen in 2015.

No one has said that.

I am not sure where they got that idea, who dreamt that one up.

No one has said that the election was not going to be in 2015.

So again, they are fabricating information to try to give an

impression that there is some cynical reasons for us wanting to make

this change in the legislation.

We are still going to have an election in 2015.

So what we have said is: Boys, if everybody agrees that

we have too many of us here, then maybe we should, rather than wait

until 2016 after the 2015 election because that is what will happen.

If we did not do this today we would have an election the fall,

we would elect forty-eight people; in 2016, the commission would be put

in place and recommend a reduction of seats.

So let's say they picked six seats, or seven seats, or eight

seats it does not matter, seven or eight seats.

A new commission in 2016 says: Boys, forty-eight too many; you

should only have forty-two.

Now, they look around and said we just redrafted the

boundaries and six of you are gone.

So we will have six MHAs sitting in this House and the

commissioner just said: Oh, by the way, you are redundant; we do not

need you anymore. Go back

home and tell your constituents that you are done; you are finished.

You are going to sit around for the next two or three years,

collect a pay cheque, but you are really finished.

Because in the next election in 2019, you are not going to be

there; you are going home.

So you have MHAs sitting here in the House, lame ducks.

The commissioner just said: Guys, you have two or three

years here, but you are no longer wanted, you are not needed, so you

might as well go home. We

have been paying you on the debt, and you are accumulating a pension,

and all that stuff, costing taxpayers' money.

So what are you doing here?

What we are saying is why don't we do this in 2015

before the 2015 election?

The operative point here is before please listen before the 2015

election, because we are still planning a 2015 election.

That is not changing.

This bill does not say we are going to move the election date.

That is a whole different act.

There is another piece of legislation on the books that says when

the elections are going to be held.

That spells out the fixed term election.

That is not the bill we are dealing with here; that is a whole

different act altogether.

So, we are still talking about a 2015 election.

What we are saying is rather than do this in 2019, why don't we

do it in readiness for a 2015 election?

Why don't we do that?

We have said that we believe that thirty-eight people provide and I

will comment on the rationale for that in a moment.

We are saying that there would be thirty-eight people in the

House.

So, ten people, there should be ten fewer MHAs.

Over the course of the next four years, by doing this, it makes a

whole lot of sense for a lot of reasons; but, in so doing, we have ten

MHAs with their constituency offices and their constituency assistants

and all the expense of operating our offices all worthwhile

expenditures, but really over the course of the next four years, we will

spend about $10 million that will be paying for ten MHAs who will be

redundant. Does that make a

whole lot of sense? Probably

not.

Add that now to what I just said a moment ago which is,

half way through the term the next time out, a commission is going to

produce a report because now remember, we are saying thirty-eight, but

everybody else, all the other parties, have said there should be less.

So it does not matter who sits in this House in the next session.

Everybody is in agreement it is going to be something less.

So, we reasonably assume, given that everybody wants it, that the

commission in 2016, if it were to go ahead as planned, as previously

scheduled, would come up with a number less than forty-eight.

So there will be so many MHAs sitting in this House

after the 2016 report knowing that they are redundant.

You have no purpose.

You are getting paid. What

are you going to do? Your

district and your constituents have been told that you are redundant.

You are no longer needed.

You are extra. One of

those days you are going to have to go home.

It is like getting a three-year layoff notice.

That is what it is like, only you are going to get a pay cheque.