PDF Version

March

15, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 3

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

It gives

me great pleasure, and I must say it's a great honour, to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery Chief Misel Joe of the Miawpukek First Nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

May I say I'm a big fan of

the concept of seven generations out and thinking. I heard your remarks this

morning. It's great to see you here.

Also in

the Speaker's gallery today I would like to recognize Mr. Darrin Thorne. He's

the mayor of Flatrock. He has with him his two daughters, Danielle and Stephanie

Thorne. I am told that Stephanie is in her last year at MUN where she is

studying communications. Now, pay attention.

Danielle

is turning 19 today. She has a keen interest in politics. She told her dad that

she wanted to sit in on a session of the House of Assembly.

Happy

birthday to Danielle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And a warm welcome to you

all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

As you

all know, our television ratings are going up. I'd also like to send out a

greeting – they are going up.

Also,

watching the House of Assembly today over live stream, I would like to send

greetings to the students and staff from East Point Elementary school. They will

be mentioned in a Member's statement today.

So there

you go.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear from the

Members for the Districts of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Topsail -

Paradise, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Burin - Grand Bank and Harbour Main.

The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters -

Pleasantville.

MR.

B. DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge the great work of East

Point Elementary staff and to say a big hello to the students and teachers

tuning into the broadcast today.

The school community always goes above and beyond for

their students and the wonderful Rooting for Health breakfast that was put off

last week was no exception. Rooting for Health is a program across our province

which highlights the importance of the relationship between farms, food and

health.

In a partnership with Kids Eat Smart Foundation,

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, Egg Farmers of Newfoundland

and Labrador and the School Milk Foundation Newfoundland and Labrador, students

were given a breakfast prepared all from local products such as eggs, milk and

berries.

Following breakfast, displays were given from each

group, including a mock milking station and a live goat. Students had the

opportunity to ask questions and learn the importance of eating local. Rooting

for Health is celebrating its ninth year of educating school-aged children in

this fantastic initiative.

It is important to show children – and adults too –

that healthy, organic eating can start right here at home. Newfoundland and

Labrador has many great things to offer and I commend the organizers and the

staff of East Point Elementary for incorporating Rooting for Health into our

children's education.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a province that is strongly

populated with people who give and people who do for others.

Last Saturday night I was invited and happy to attend a

dinner in Carbonear where the Mazol Shriners honoured the Newfoundland and

Labrador Shriner of the Year, Nobel John Crane of Upper Island Cove.

John Crane has been a long-time Mason and Shriner and

was noted to never shy away from his commitment to helping children by

supporting the Shriners bingo, ticket sales, auctions and any fundraising event

they held.

Mr. Crane was made a lifetime member of the Shriners

club in 2016. He was honoured for a lifetime of giving to his church, his

community, his province and his country as a town councillor, as mayor and a

65-year member of the Orange Lodge, including having held the position as grand

master of the Orange Lodge of Canada.

As well as being married to his lovely wife, Leah, for

60 years and having raised six children, Mr. Crane also served as a Member of

this hon. House from 1989 to 1996.

I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating John Crane and thanking him for his service to his community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great privilege to rise in this hon. House

to celebrate a milestone and bring greetings to Mrs. Mary Pickett of Joe Batt's

Arm on Fogo Island.

She was born in St. John's on February 6, 1918. She

married Frank Pickett in June of 1940. Together, they had five children: Lucy,

Catherine, Augustine (deceased), Patrick and Madonna. These guys brought forward

30 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Sadly, her husband, Frank, passed

away in 1978. Mrs. Pickett continued to live in her own home until 2010.

Her sense of humour is second to none and her memory is

as sharp as a tack. Her favourite response, whenever anyone asks her age, is: “I

got to this age because I never drank or had a smoke” in my life.

There was an open house to celebrate her birthday on

February 6, where numerous family and friends visited her.

Please join me in wishing Mrs. Mary Pickett of Joe

Batt's Arm a belated 100th birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burin - Grand Bank.

MS.

HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, though March 12 marked the ninth

anniversary of the Cougar Flight 491 crash, for all who attended the memorial

service Monday evening at St. Mary the Virgin Anglican Church, the outpouring of

emotions and community spirit will forever be etched in our memories.

We all know the details of the tragic event, but

details alone do not tell the full story, Mr. Speaker. Rather, the story

continues to be told on the tear-stained faces of the family members and friends

of the 17 individuals who lost their lives that fateful day.

For me, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy touched close to home

as I saw my first cousin, Wanda, and her daughters, Taylor and Jenna Wade,

devastated with the loss of their dear father and husband, Wade Drake of

Fortune, originally from Lords Cove. The tragedy also took the life of Burch

Nash of Marystown, originally from Fortune in my District of Burin - Grand Bank,

where his parents Harold and Marjorie still reside.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the price of oil, we

should always be cognizant of the price paid by the brave men and women who lost

their lives while earning a living in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in once

again remembering the victims and the families of Cougar crash Flight 491.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

MS.

PARSLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, it is with great pride today that I rise to recognize Wayne Miller, a

member in my district who was recently awarded the Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I had the pleasure of joining Mr. Miller at Government House while he

accepted his award.

Mr.

Miller joined the Canadian Armed Forces in 1961 where he served as a regular

force member until his honourable retirement in 1991.

Mr.

Miller has volunteered and dedicated countless hours to our community and is an

active member of the United Nations Peacekeepers Association, working closely

with a number of local high schools towards the implementation of the Junior

Peacekeeping Award, which is designed to make Newfoundland and Labrador school

children aware of and bridge the connections to the sacrifices of past and

present Canadian Armed Force members, particularly native Newfoundland and

Labrador service men and women.

Still to

this day, Mr. Miller serves as an associate of the Signallers Club of Canada,

the Veterans of Canada and on the executive board of Branch 50 of the Royal

Canadian Legion. He created the Veteran and Family Community Covenant, the first

of its kind in Canada, and serves as the chairperson of the CBS Monument of

Honour Committee.

For his

considerable efforts and his work to honour veterans and recognize Newfoundland

and Labrador's military legacy, I ask all Members to join me in recognizing his

investment into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, work-related

mental stress conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are

impacting workplaces across Canada, including here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Late last fall, I met with stakeholders to seek input on the prevention of, and

compensation for, work-related mental stress issues.

A review

of WorkplaceNL's mental stress policy was initiated in order to explore options

to modernize the approach to work-related mental stress issues, including PTSD.

As a result, WorkplaceNL has modernized its mental stress policy to recognize

that work-related mental stress issues may be caused by exposure to multiple

traumatic events. The policy now includes events that are an inherent part of an

occupation such as first responders witnessing fatalities.

Under

the updated policy, workers diagnosed with a specific mental stress issue,

including PTSD, will be assessed to determine if they qualify for benefits under

the workers' compensation system. The revisions allow the policy to be applied

more fairly across all occupations, including first responders.

Mr.

Speaker, a longer term review of PTSD coverage in workers' compensation

legislation is also ongoing. This review is expected to inform possible

changes for work-related mental stress injuries, which is in keeping with our

government's focus on improvements in all programs and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I was

pleased to see this morning a change in policy that will impact primarily

first-line responders and people in other professions in our province who

previously have not been able to obtain coverage from WorkplaceNL because their

diagnosis was a result of a cumulative effect, repeated exposures over a period

of time. I know this process is not complete. It is a step closer to presumptive

legislation, but it does move forward and change who can apply and who will be

eligible in the short term. It's a step in the right direction.

I'll be

participating in the process as it moves it along. I've already made

submissions. I encourage people to do so. The deadline is coming up but this is

definitely a step in the right direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yes, it

is a step in the right direction, I agree, but we have been calling for

presumptive PTSD legislation for first responders for some time. It is already a

fact in other jurisdictions in Canada.

The

minister speaks of a policy but we have not seen it yet. I wonder why we are

beating around the bush. Workers affected by PTSD do not need to be put through

more bureaucratic hoops; they need immediate help. Presumptive PTSD legislation

would ensure they get it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Mr.

Speaker, the power and the presence of Newfoundland and Labrador's fish and

seafood industry was well on display at the 2018 Boston seafood show. From March

11 to 13, this event attracted over 22,000 industry representatives from more

than 120 countries.

I saw first-hand how our industry is meeting and exceeding

the expectations of a global marketplace and one that puts a premium on value,

quality and food security. We, Mr. Speaker, are emerging as the leaders in a

fiercely competitive world.

Mr. Speaker, it's true to say that our harvesters, our

processors and our fishing industry suppliers are very pleased with our

government's leadership as we work with the industry players to maximize the

success of our seafood industry.

Newfoundland and Labrador night was one of the hottest

tickets in Boston with companies scrambling for access. The positive feedback I

received started there, Mr. Speaker, and was constant during the entire

three-day event.

Industry

associations feel very much part of this march forward. The work of our

Fisheries Advisory Council has already proven very relevant to the needs of our

industry.

Mr.

Speaker, the industry was extremely impressed with our renewed policy direction

in promoting greater quality control and assurance, expanding market access,

industry promotion and innovation. The provincial industry told me our advocacy

on their behalf is like no other they have seen in years and they're very, very

grateful. The $100 million Atlantic Fisheries Fund is already improving the

outcomes of our fish harvesters, our processors and our communities.

Presenting our Seafood Industry Year in

Review 2017 , Mr. Speaker, I was proud to inform the world that 2017 was our

third consecutive year our export value exceeded $1 billion in our seafood

industry. By maintaining close contact with the key industry players, we will

keep this value high and we will continue to build on Newfoundland and

Labrador's reputation as a provider of premium seafood products to the entire

world.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

Mr. Speaker, the seafood industry and our fishing

industry is an important and valuable part of our economy and of our entire

being as a province. The Boston seafood show provides an excellent opportunity

to showcase quality seafood and products and our industry on a global stage.

We're pleased that this year's event attracted so many

participants. We certainly know the more exposure our industry gets, the better

the markets.

I was interested to hear the minister mention the

Fisheries Advisory Council. I would certainly like him to tell us more about

exactly what that group is doing and what progress is being made on the

strategic action plan for cod revitalization. I doubt, however, Minister, that

the industry was impressed while you and your caucus sat idly by while 25 per

cent of the surf clam quota was taken from the people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

K. PARSONS:

certainly hope spending more time with industry representatives in Boston will

motivate the minister and his government to do more for the fishing industry in

our province.

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'm delighted to hear how things are going and how well

things went in Boston. I firmly believe the fishery is an extremely important

part of our future. The more we can do to support and promote our fishery, the

better.

I would like to see the minister, though, involved in

making sure that our resource helps everybody. What's happened lately with the

surf clam quota is very disturbing. I'd

like to see the minister, in

leadership, sitting with Ottawa, sitting with our indigenous groups and sitting

with other fish harvesters to make things work for everybody.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, March 18-24 is Multiculturalism Week, when we celebrate the province's

rich diversity of cultures and the contributions of residents of all

backgrounds.

I invite

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to decorate their homes and businesses with

multicoloured lights, a tradition that began in Labrador West and has since been

adopted by communities throughout the province.

Multiculturalism Week begins this Sunday with the 19th annual Sharing Our

Cultures at The Rooms. The event features 60 high school presenters and welcomes

more than a thousand students, teachers, volunteers and people from diverse

backgrounds. This year's theme is Music, Dance, Stories.

Earlier

today, I was pleased to announce funding for 19 additional Multiculturalism Week

events, a key commitment in The Way

Forward on Immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador , the province's

collaborative immigration action plan. These events celebrate intercultural

understanding through activities such as film screenings, musical performances,

networking events and more. They will take place in communities from Labrador

City, to St. Anthony, to Port aux Basques, to St. John's.

Our

government recognizes the critical role that diversity plays in the province's

cultural, social and economic growth. Our commitment to attracting and retaining

more newcomers is strong and I am pleased to note that many priority actions in

our immigration action plan are implemented or ongoing.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in encouraging everyone to participate in all events

that will take place next week and experience the joy of welcoming new people,

cultures and ideas to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This side of the House would

also like to recognize Multiculturalism Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all identify closely with our culture. It's

who we are and we are rightly proud of that fact. Mr. Speaker, what also makes

me proud to be from this province is how we embrace and celebrate the culture

and backgrounds of others.

I'm

pleased to see the government acknowledging the role multiculturalism plays in

our society and I hope all those taking

part in events have a great time this

week during the celebrations.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

Order,

please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I applaud the support

the department is giving to the multicultural events that are going on around

our province. I think we all know how important the multicultural nature of our

province is, and I'm glad to see that growing.

The

minister says government's actions involve retaining newcomers and the actions

are strong. Mr. Speaker, I have to question that, and I would like further

updated information from the minister with regard to our retention rate because

I'm not sure it's as strong as he thinks it is.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

referenced earlier by the minister, today changes were announced to the

compensation policy for workers with mental stress injuries including PTSD. The

policy change, while it's not presumptive, will now recognize repeated

exposures, quite often referred to as the commutative effect.

I ask

the minister: Will this new policy be implemented retroactively so as to include

those previously not eligible for coverage?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Workplace NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the revisions to

the policy on March 8 allow the policy to be more fairly applied to all

occupations. The policy came into effect on March 8, and, Mr. Speaker, we're now

aligned with 10 other provinces. The policy now includes PTSD, acute stress,

depression and anxiety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the question was

about retroactivity. In some other provinces, when they implemented their

presumptive rules and broader coverage for repeated exposures, included a clause

for retroactivity.

I ask

the minister: Is retroactivity a part of this implementation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Workplace NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, for individuals

who are presently receiving workers' compensation and they develop mental health

concerns and issues, they will be individually looked at, but the policy came

into effect as of March 8.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

not relative to PTSD. People have been denied coverage because of the

accumulation effect and couldn't identify particular incidents. It sounds like

the minister has not included retroactivity.

Mr.

Speaker, last summer it became well-known that the United States Department of

Commerce was reviewing tariffs.

I ask

the Premier: What have you done since last summer to ensure that jobs at Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper and the jobs in the Newfoundland forestry industry have

been protected?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

it's widely known to people from coast to coast in this country, and certainly

in this province, that the Trump administration has had a significant impact on

the trade relationship between Canada and the US, Mr. Speaker. I could go on

with a long list of things that we've been involved in as a province. We

concluded a trip to Washington and met with some of the key trade officials last

June.

Since

September, when we were notified that there would be a review in terms of

countervailing and anti-dumping related to the Kruger operations, both in Quebec

and Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, we've had significant engagement.

With that said, though, I will say the federal government has been involved.

This government is acutely aware of tariff negotiations with the federal

government because it is this government that recovered some $27 million worth

of tariffs that you left on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

nothing specific from what the Premier has done; let me narrow it down a little

bit. The first tariff was announced in January. It was a 9.93 per cent tariff.

It's essentially a fee on products as they enter the United States. It's well

known that another tariff could be announced. It was expected that was a very

high likelihood in reality that could happen.

I ask

the Premier: What have you done, since the first tariff was announced in

January, to protect those people working in the forestry industry and to

advocate for Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's

been a lot of work that's been done, as a matter of fact, going back to the

January preliminary decision which is not a final decision. That was with the

tariff. This is the 9.93 per cent that was put on by the US Department of

Commerce back in January.

As a

matter of fact, I think the Member would be aware that we put a technical

briefing even to him and his staff. We made that available back in January. We

have not heard a word from the Official Opposition on this issue since.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you there is a group of officials that have been working

very hard. As a matter of fact, there have been some 700 pages –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– of information that's

publicly available. I'm sure the Members opposite would have read all that.

We have

officials, Mr. Speaker, with a legal team out of the US that's been directly

putting a lot of effort into their response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

it's interesting to note that tariffs are going to hit Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper operations right in the Premier's own backyard. Not only in his own

backyard, but two of his senior ministers, their own districts will be

significantly impacted by this.

Not only

is the Premier's district involved but he's also the minister responsible for

trade. By the sound of his answers today, he's done very little to protect

Newfoundland and Labrador in this industry.

Yesterday, the Premier himself – his words – said: It is what it is. Those are

the words he used yesterday.

I ask

the Premier: Have you had any discussions with officials from the US Department

of Commerce regarding these tariffs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

Friday there was a conference call with the prime minister as well as premiers

all across this country, some of them even Conservative premiers, some of them

NDP premiers, Mr. Speaker.

It's

quite clear with the prime minister on the call newsprint was one of the issues

that we discussed. It is, indeed, from Canadians coast to coast on a trade

issue, as we engage with the Trump administration, we speak with one voice, Mr.

Speaker.

There

seems to be a bit of wedge that's trying to be drawn here. There's a lot of work

that's been done as a result of the decision that Trump has made, Mr. Speaker.

This is not about the federal government, this is about a decision that's been

made by the Trump administration that's having a profound impact on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The

questions coming from the Leader of the Opposition are politically motivated,

Mr. Speaker. We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should stand together

fighting against the Trump administration on these decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These

questions are motivated by the needs on the West Coast of our province and the

devastating effect that could happen –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

– if things carry through as

has been happening, Mr. Speaker.

sounds like what the Premier says – he said several times today a lot has been

done, but he hasn't specifically said anything that he has done.

The

question was very simple: If he's met with the US Department of Commerce on

tariffs. Instead of throwing mud, he should be focused on the questions, the

answers and what he's doing for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the

Premier this: Has he spoken to the ambassador to the United States to express

concerns about tariffs? It is one thing to speak about premiers and to the prime

minister, but it's the United States who's made this decision, not Canadian

politicians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the ambassador

has been heavily involved in this. As a matter of fact, the Canadian ambassador

even came and met with our Cabinet and had a discussion on this. He's been

heavily involved.

It was

him who hosted our event in Washington, Mr. Speaker, at Canada house. We've had

many, many, many; he's been on every single discussion that we would have had

with US trade relationships with Canada. Right now, there is a lot of engagement

but if the Member opposite is suggesting that he's going to influence Trump's

Twitter account, I'd like to see how he plans to do that.

Right

now, we have Canadians across this country, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

that have been heavily engaged. Our communities, Mr. Speaker, on the West Coast

and around this province are engaged. The unions are engaged. The company is

engaged. The federal government is engaged and this government is engaged.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I think the Premier just

mentioned the federal government. It's certainly not a reference he made

yesterday during his press conference with the media; very little mention,

actually, of the federal government yesterday.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been two days since the tariffs were announced.

I ask

the Premier: Have you had discussions with the prime minister in the last 48

hours? What action are you taking to motivate Ottawa to protect Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said

just earlier, in one of the answers that I gave, we spoke to the prime minister

on Friday of last week. Officials are involved in this, Mr. Speaker, had

discussions on Tuesday. There was work ongoing.

These

are preliminary tariffs that are put in place. The final decision will be made

in August or September of this year. We have people engaged at every single

level, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Every single level: the

ambassador, the prime minister, the federal department, our own provincial

department, officials and a legal team in the US. Everyone is involved in this,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

It is a Trump administration

decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

I ask the Member opposite:

What is it he expects us to do? Go and march into the White House and get a

meeting with Trump?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yeah (inaudible).

PREMIER BALL:

Oh yeah, good luck.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

It's a good idea, Mr.

Speaker, a good idea by the Premier opposite. Maybe he should get on a plane and

go to Washington and knock on some doors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, if he went to

Washington and knocked on some doors, I'm sure the paper industries, the

newspaper industries in Washington, would be willing to listen to his story

because they're the ones going to be impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, we've seen the

prime minister speak out on steel and aluminum. He stood before the cameras in

defence of Canadians. He stood before the cameras in defence of Quebecers when

it came to Bombardier and the challenges they were facing.

I ask

the Premier today: When is the prime minister going to stand for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians? When will we see him standing in front of the cameras to

protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

vividly remember a Friday night when the Leader of the Opposition, who was

premier at the time, tried to get a meeting with the prime minister and actually

got kicked out of the office. He came out and stood in front of his door and

said you can't trust that guy. That was his language: You can't trust that guy,

when he's trying to get money for the Fisheries Fund, Mr. Speaker.

Here we

are and I am more than willing to discuss the federal involvement that we're

having on this very issue. The steel industry; as I explained to the Members

opposite yesterday and the media, it was a very different tariff. The steel and

the aluminum was an industry-wide tariff, Mr. Speaker. The tariffs that we're

seeing that have been imposed on Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is those on the

companies.

I will

assure you the federal government is concerned about this. We are doing – and we

have them involved every step of the way.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

actual fact, the correct information is we did have a meeting with the prime

minister, Mr. Speaker. My colleague right here and I sat in the prime minister's

office. It wasn't dictated to us what we were going to say. We spoke for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I was not afraid to stand up

for Newfoundland and Labrador because that's what I was elected to do, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I was elected to represent

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, while yesterday

in his press conference the Premier was saying it is what it is, he also said

the new tariffs are going to cost Kruger an addition $30 million.

I ask

the Premier: Have you done an assessment yet on what the impact is going to be

on the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

number one, it's not a final decision. I will say that again.

As I

said publicly yesterday, we had a conversation with Mr. Kruger on this issue. We

spoke to the unions yesterday. We spoke to the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Please

proceed.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spoke

to the communities yesterday. This is a joint effort, Mr. Speaker, on all

Members of this government, including the federal government, the industry, the

communities and the unions.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very serious issue; $30 million to that company is

significant, it really is. We will continue to work with this industry because

it's just not the newsprint industry; it's the forestry industry in our

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

That's right, Mr. Speaker,

it's 5,000 jobs that are hanging in the balance on this. Five thousand jobs on

the balance in the Premier's own backyard, the backyard of two of his senior

Cabinet ministers and we haven't heard anything solid that he's done to approach

the United States himself to say: We need to fix this.

Two days

ago the tariffs were announced. I've asked the Premier to tell me what he's done

in the last few days to change this and we haven't heard a solid answer yet.

Mr.

Speaker, 5,000 jobs, a $30 million impact to Kruger. The Premier won't say what

the cost is to the province or what his assessment is.

What

assurances can the Premier give to those employed in the forestry sector and

directly at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper today that their jobs are safe?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy to answer this question because it's very interesting coming from the

Leader of the Opposition who sat in government at the time when we saw it. Guess

what? A newsprint mill closed. Where was that? What was that community?

Stephenville. A newsprint mill closed in Stephenville.

What

about Grand Falls-Windsor? Did you not participate in the closure of a mill in

Grand Falls-Windsor? It was your party that ended up closing those mills.

Well, I

will guarantee you right now, it is this government that is heavily engaged;

and, yes, I don't care whose backyard it is, it could be in any backyard of

anyone in this province, we will stand up for this industry. We will not walk

away from it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some

mainstream media and even the Human Rights Commission to bring attention so as

to access services for their children to receive inclusive education in our

school system. Only to be told by the school district that even though they have

fought and won service for this year, it doesn't mean their children will

receive the same services next year.

Does the

minister think this is an appropriate approach to inclusive education?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

No, it isn't, Mr. Speaker,

but this is the residual effect of the mess that was made when, without any

consultation at all, the previous government brought in an inclusive education

policy after consulting no one but themselves. I ask the Member to look no

further than pages 22 to 24 of the Speech from the Throne from yesterday. He

will see what it is we are going to do.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, I gave the Member a copy yesterday of

Now is the Time , the task force report. He didn't even have a copy

of that up until yesterday. It was published on July 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

correct the minister. I've had multiple copies. I didn't have the bound copy

because he didn't have the courtesy to give me one of those at the time, but

that's fine. I can still do my job with the printed copy.

I should

note, too, three years later it's his responsibility as the Minister of

Education to improve our education system, not blame teachers, administrators,

parents and the former administration for what he's not doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

It's not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

A number of families are

struggling with not being able to access supports in the school system for

children who have various behavioural challenges and learning disabilities –

which can cause challenges for both the students and teachers – to ensure a

suitable level of education is being provided.

Will the

minister reassure parents, students and teachers that supports will be enhanced

to address these issues?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I gave a

20-minute speech here in the House of Assembly, in response to the Speech from

the Throne, and outlined in some detail what we're going to do. It's all laid

out in the task force report which the Member got a copy of yesterday. It was

laid out on pages 22 to 23 of the Speech from the Throne that we saw this week.

I don't

blame teachers. I don't blame parents. I blame the PC Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador which did not even bother to consult teachers or parents or experts or

anybody but themselves before bringing in an inclusive education policy in 2007

that never worked.

We said

this repeatedly in Opposition. Now we're over here on this side and we have a

plan to fix the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I remind the minister that's

a nice tale but he knows it's not true.

He's the

only minister I can remember in the last number of years who has been asked to

resign by the NLTA. That speaks volumes there, Mr. Speaker.

Last

year, the school district had a lottery to choose what students could access

French immersion at Beachy Cove Elementary in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's due to

the large number of students wishing to enrol. This year, the school district

has cancelled the late French immersion program at the newly opened Brookside

Intermediate school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. It informed parents that if

their children want to continue the late French immersion program, they will

have to travel to Leary's Brook Junior High in St. John's and that

transportation will be the responsibility of the parents.

Does the

minister think this is the best way to promote access to education and to

promote bilingualism in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the number of changes to early and late French immersion in

Newfoundland and Labrador that have taken place since I have become Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development have been precisely zero. The policy

is exactly the same as the policy that existed the entire time the previous

administration was there.

My son

doesn't go to the school that he's zoned to; my son goes to a French immersion

school. That's the way it works here in metro on the Northeast Avalon.

Many

students in this province do not even have the privilege to attend early French

immersion because of the nature of the program being an optional one where it is

basically a culmination of resources that allows the programs to exist. That is

not a new thing in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain the diversification efforts initiated by

his government in the forest industry as pointed out in the Speech from the

Throne?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

It's an absolute pleasure to take the opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker. I

really want to thank the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity because

that's exactly what we're doing.

We are

not only engaged with the forest industry of Newfoundland and Labrador to look

at new products, to look at diversified products, we're expanding on our

preferential market access into the United States through our Softwood Lumber

Agreement exemption which we were able to help negotiate.

Mr.

Speaker, we're not just interested in lumber products, we're working with our

forest industry to look at diversity through bioenergy, thermo bioenergy and

biodiesel. We're working with our forest industry to look at new products to be

able to bring to market.

addition, Mr. Speaker, we're coupling our forestry industry, our primary

producers, with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to create greater diversity for that

operation as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's passion for the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

But largely what I'm hearing is still only theory. We need to see wood on the

ground, wood on trucks, whatever form it may be in, but in the most maximum

value that we can say we can retrieve out of our industry.

Can the

minister update the House on the latest business proposal regarding the Abitibi

timber stand? How long before the people in Central, specifically the Botwood

area, know the fate of the second project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing theoretical about trucks of wood, of lumber going

to the United States, going to other markets through the advantages that we've

already been able to achieve through our Softwood Lumber Agreement and through

the preferential situation of our industry. But we are certainly interested in

all new initiatives, including thermal energy, including exports of product.

Do you

know what we're really, really focused in on? Making sure we achieve maximum

value from our resources. We're talking to a number of different organizations,

a number of different companies. Some are looking at export sales; some are

looking at the domestic markets.

There

was a company some time ago that did express some interest in the Central

Newfoundland timber resources. They voluntarily withdrew that proposal. There is

another company that we're working with. We'll take on all comers because, you

know what, we're open for business, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

In the Speech from the Throne

the forest industry got less than a sentence in a 26-page document. According to

some harvesters, that seems reflective of the interest in the forest industry.

I ask

the minister: What is the current value of the forest industry and what growth

targets have you identified?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, this is a $300

million annual enterprise to our province. It not only provides good jobs in

domestic markets, but also international markets. We are exporting paper

internationally. In addition to the United States market, we are exporting paper

internationally to various markets in Europe, in Asia and in South America.

We're also looking at additional markets in other venues for our timber products

and for our fibre products.

Mr.

Speaker, we have 5,000 jobs that depend on our forest industry. That's why it's

always helpful to hear this hon. Member stand up and applaud the government,

like he's done today, by giving us an opportunity to highlight and showcase the

tremendous success of our government in our forest industry.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier has said he doesn't need to pick a fight to be heard because of his

relationship with the government and his federal counterparts. It's built on

mutual respect and strong partnership.

Under

your watch, your federal colleagues have given the Fisheries Fund to Atlantic

Canada, it put the Ocean Frontier Institute headquarters in Nova Scotia, it

shifted Small Craft Harbours to New Brunswick and now it's giving the surf clam

quota to New Brunswick and a group in Nova Scotia to process.

Premier,

don't you think it's time for you to stand up for our fishery and the people of

our province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic

Fisheries Fund is already providing a dividend to Newfoundland and Labrador

processors, harvesters and suppliers. This is not a ghost phantom fund. This is

not an invisible fund that the hon. Member tried to negotiate and achieve. This

is a $100 million fund which is in play today and is providing a huge

substantial difference to rural communities, fishing communities in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

We have

had successes. Unlike the previous administration that could get nowhere on the

Last In, First Out principle. We were able to achieve a success with our federal

counterparts; unlike the previous the previous administration which actually had

no relationship whatsoever with Madam Shea or anyone else in the former

government. We are producing results. We have a lot of work to do.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis for a very quick question, please.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, you were enacted in

your new mandate letter to advocate for fisheries policy in the best interest of

people in the province.

Don't

you think fighting for issues like joint management and adjacency are in the

best interest of the people of this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

in his previous statement had said that he wanted some clarity on what the

Fisheries Advisory Council was doing. For example, and I'll give him some

clarity, not only has the Fisheries Advisory Council already reported on my

request as to whether or not adjacency –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:

– should be built into the

federal Fisheries Act , they have

reported, and he should be aware if he's keeping ahead of his portfolio that

he's supposed to be the critic of, he would aware that the –

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:

– Fisheries Advisory Council

has reported, not only to me but to him and to every stakeholder in the

industry, that we feel very, very strongly that adjacency should be built into

the federal Fisheries Act .

That is

a commitment; that is a principle that is held, not by just us, but by the

industry. I wish he could grab hold of it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The most

recent America tariff hit to Kruger's mill in Corner Brook, while beyond our

control, could seriously harm the province's forestry industry, as the Premier

has already stated today.

I ask

the Premier: Will he convene a meeting with representatives of all three

provincial parties and the seven federal MPs so we can discuss and strategize

about how we can work at that collaboratively for the good of the people of this

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, on

any issue that face this province, I will tell all Members of this House that my

door is open. I've yet to get a call from the Leader of the Third Party. If you

want to talk about this issue at all, you're more than welcome.

As a

matter of fact, we've put in place, I think, one of the best forums that has

ever been put into this on budget consultations back just before the closure of

the House in December of this year. The Member opposite didn't show up for that

either.

I will

say this: This is a big issue facing the forestry industry in our province. If

the Leader of the Third Party would like to come up and have a discussion on all

of this, the door is open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I don't

want to get into opposition here in a negative way, I really sincerely ask: Why

can't we all sit down together? Not this one-on-one, sit and talk

collaboratively, involve the MPs, all of whom are Liberal MPs, to see how we can

all collaboratively feel like we are together working for the good of the

people.

I ask it

once more of the Premier: Why can't that happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

I said yesterday, we gave a very detailed technical briefing to all people, the

media. I know there were Members there. There were Members there from the

Opposition Party, the Official Opposition.

Mr.

Speaker, that same kind of briefing, I know you weren't there yesterday but if

you want that information you're more than welcome to it. I'd be more than

willing to outline to you things that we've done already, the impact on this

company.

I can't

speak for the MPs, but, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they are equally concerned about

this as you and I are. I appreciate your concern, I say to the Member opposite.

Any time you want to discuss this or any other issue, just give us a call. I'd

be more than willing to have that discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We are

looking forward to working together on this very serious issue. As is evident

from recent developments, this province's economic well-being is at the mercy of

volatile international markets that are beyond our control because of our heavy

reliance on the development of our natural resources. To say the least, when we

put our economic eggs mainly in this one trade-driven basket, we are extremely

vulnerable.

I ask

the Premier: Where is his concrete, comprehensive, community-based action plan

for diversifying our economy to ensure sustainability in all regions of the

province so that we are better protected from volatile international markets in

the future?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to remind people in this House today that, number one, when it comes to

trade, we were granted an exemption based on some very extensive lobbying

efforts with some of our colleagues in other provinces too, Mr. Speaker, getting

an exemption from the softwood lumber tariffs that could have had an impact on

our industry in this province.

recognized quite early into this administration that economic diversification in

our province is key. That is the reason why we announced and released

The Way Forward . We see a major focus

on agriculture, aquaculture and technology sector summits that we've had.

We're

seeing results of that already, Mr. Speaker. Just as an example, we've seen

Crown lands now being readily developed for agriculture development. It's

creating jobs and food security which I'm sure is important to all Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We also

need to see plans that are based in reality, that have support, that are

concrete and that are community based so that they are sustainable across the

province. Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is a glaring example of what can happen

when a government operates in secrecy and behind closed doors.

I ask

the Premier: Will he agree to a transparent process of collaboration with

communities and relevant groups most affected by these tariffs, so that their

ideas are part of the discussions and they are kept informed about any and all

developments related to tariffs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the

Member opposite that we have had numerous calls with our community leaders.

We're in constant contact with our community leaders, our unions and Members of

the House of Commons.

Mr.

Speaker, we are completely engaged on this file. I agree with you, this is

significant. We are seeing the Trump administration now making really

unjustified, unwarranted decisions that are impacting Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. This recent event that we saw this week with the anti-dumping

tariff is an example of that.

I agree

it's important that we all work together on this issue. Like I say, if there's

any information that you want me to share with you, I'm more than willing to do

that, as I have with the mayors and the community leaders on the West Coast and

around this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

for tabling here a report of the Standing Orders Committee, March 15, 2018.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further presenting reports?

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:

Standing

Order 73 be amended as follows:

(1) Standing Order 73 is amended by adding immediately after the word “minister”

wherever it appears, the words “or his or her delegate.”

(2) Standing Order 73 is amended by adding immediately after Standing Order 73(6)

the following: (7) for the purpose of this Standing Order, “delegate” means a

Minister of the Crown who may introduce Estimates on behalf of another minister.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to rise today and present a petition for the people of my

district.

The

Public Utilities Board has approved a licence for an ambulance owner to operate

in the area from Bay Bulls to Bauline on Route 10 on the Southern Shore. The

area has been recognized by Stats Canada as one of the fastest growing areas in

the province.

There

were many concerns expressed by residents, certainly long-term – facilities

there for seniors. I had some discussions with the local fire department with

regard to response times.

We,

therefore, petition the hon. House of Assembly:

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to support the petition of this service provider and

ensure the residents of Bay Bulls to Bauline have access to the appropriate

ambulance services.

Mr.

Speaker, this is something over the past year or more for this particular area –

the lower end of the Southern Shore from Cape Broyle south that's serviced by a

current service provider and on down to the southern tip, down below the

Trepassey area. As you get closer to St. John's, from Bauline to Bay Bulls and

out towards Middle Pond, the response for that ambulance care primarily is

coming from the Health Sciences Complex.

Over the

past number of months, and probably the last couple of years, we've noticed the

response times have been getting longer. That's certainly causing concerns in

regard to immediate response times, even normal transfers that often occur

between a hospital and people in the area, whether they're in a retirement home

or different facilities in the region.

There's

been concern expressed. I do recognize that I did have a discussion with the

minister. He did, indeed, meet with myself and the current operator who's

looking to expand to the region. We had a very good discussion.

There

were some numbers expressed in some of the data that we had that was left with

the minister. He did commit to take a look. He did indicate they're undertaking

a review of the actual ambulance practice and some of the funding models they're

doing and how that would work. He did agree to take a look and have a review and

I certainly acknowledge that.

Today is

recognizing the efforts of the region and recognizing what's needed in regard to

what we believe is additional ambulance service. I do call upon government to

have another look at this, take a review.

certainly want to recognize the Minister of Health and him taking the time to

meet. I left the information with him. In due course, we hope to get a

favourable response to this request and this petition.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

French immersion program at Brookside Intermediate school in Portugal Cove-St.

Philip's without consulting with parents. The decision will require current

grade five and six students of Brookside Intermediate school who want to enrol

in late French immersion to attend Leary's Brook Junior High in St. John's. As a

result, transportation to Leary's Brook Junior High will be the responsibility

of parents.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address this issue, leading to the

reinstatement of the late French immersion program to Brookside Intermediate

school.

Mr.

Speaker, as I talked about it earlier in Question Period, this time last year

the school district was having a lottery around who in the elementary school

could enter late French immersion because there were so many students interested

in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

As a result, it was a

positive thing. Negative in the process they used, but positive that so many

young people wanted to enter late French immersion for, obviously, various

reasons: to become bilingual, to have more opportunity, to be part of our

cultural heritage in this great country of ours.

As a

result, they moved into a brand new state-of-the-art school that was opened –

and I mean state of the art – so that the students in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's

no longer had to be bused into St. John's for any level of education in the

middle school levels. Part of that was late French immersion; went through that,

great.

Now, all

of a sudden, the late French immersion is being eliminated. In return, now

they're telling students you need to go back to an aged school that we took you

out of that was overcrowded, leave your friends and your neighbours and the

teams that you play with to do French immersion. Then you're adding to the

populous with the parents. You also have to arrange scheduling and

transportation at your own cost.

If we're

not going backwards when it comes to our education system, if we're not taking

away from trying to promote multicultural – particularly around a bilingual

society, and if you're saying we've introduced into a growing community new

facilities, state of the art, with programs and services that meet the needs of

the people in that particular community. Now, all of a sudden, we're going to

take away from it by taking you out of that facility, put you in another

facility, have you be disrupted so that you have to find a

schedule that works

for you with transportation away from your friends and the things you're

connected to, there's no way, shape or form that this is about enhancing our

education system and fulfilling the mandate that everybody would have access to

system here.

becomes alarming, it's confusing and the parents here are baffled. All of a

sudden, all the things that were positive have been taken away by a school

district making a flippant decision to move people out.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again in the future.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development for a response, please.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, again as I said

in Question Period, I just want to correct what the Member is saying because

he's wrong. That's not a rare occurrence.

First of

all, he talked about this lottery. That was for intensive core French. That

wasn't for the program he's talking about. That's also the same lottery that the

something that changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

But that was like that when

you were in government. I never heard you say anything about it here in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

Not only that, when I became

Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, there were about 200 schools in the province

that didn't have any French immersion. It's still basically the case, but I

didn't hear the Member getting up and complaining that those 200 schools didn't

have French immersion.

There's

no transportation provided for French immersion. I can't imagine the amount of

chaos, how the Member would plan to provide transportation – I mean what he's

suggesting makes absolutely no sense for an optional program that parents know

they're signing their children up to. The vast majority of the tens of thousands

of students in this province don't have access at all to any French immersion.

That's unfortunate, but that's what we're dealing with when we have an optional

program for which there are scarce resources.

If the

Member wants to have universal French immersion in the province, stand up and

please tell us what that would cost so we can have a conversation about what it

would cost for every school in the province to have what it is you're proposing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

How many millions of dollars

would it be?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is expired.

Further

petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public

Utilities Act, Bill 2, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public

Utilities Act, Bill 2, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. The Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend

The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act,” carried.

(Bill 2)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 2 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,

second reading of Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 1,

An Act To Amend The Family

Violence Protection Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 1, entitled

An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, be now read

a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act.”

(Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly very proud to stand here today and speak in second reading to our Bill

1, which is

An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act.

I've had

an opportunity over the last few days – in fact, we did a technical briefing

with the media today. Upon the media's request, they wanted to see what our Bill

1 was about. In fact, our Premier spoke about it over the weekend. We also did

briefings with the Opposition, with government caucus, so that everybody had an

opportunity to ask questions about this piece of legislation, about these

amendments, what they mean and what they were intended to do.

I have

to thank, again, our staff for the great work they do up in the Department of

Justice and Public Safety because it's a significant amount of work to get any

bill done and this is one that has come together fairly quickly. We've been

hearing about it. In fact, a lot of the credit has to go, not only to our staff,

but we took the time – a number of ministers on this side of the House – to sit

down with various groups who brought forward amendments that would contribute to

the safety, primarily of women, and took these ideas.

That's

not just having a meeting just for the sake of having a meeting. We've taken

some of this – and these were ideas that were put forward. So, again, I thank

the people out in the community who have taken the time to talk to us and sit

with us and the people in the Department of Justice and Public Safety who have

put this together, put together a great briefing. They have done a great job of

explaining this issue, explaining what the legislation does and what it means.

I'm very

happy to be able to stand here today and try my best to give some idea of this

legislation, in general, and what this amendment does.

The

Family Violence Protection Act came

about in December 2005 and it was meant, basically, to provide an immediate

response to incidents of family violence, primarily physical. It doesn't

supersede, it's meant to supplement the

Criminal Code. It's meant to supplement the

Family Law Act , but we needed

something, we had many cases where, primarily, women were put in situations

where they were experiencing violent that weren't able to be dealt with through

the regular means quickly enough. They were in very explosive, traumatic,

violent situations where there was a possibility of harm to individuals as well

as children, and they needed to do something. So this piece of legislation was

brought in.

What it

did, the main thing, I think, that came out of it was it provided an immediate

ex parte, which means no notice, application to the court to allow a victim of

family violence to obtain an emergency protection order or EPO. That's the term

I'll use throughout this is an EPO. That's an emergency protection order.

What

this did was it allowed, through this law, for a person to go file an emergency

protection order application within the court and had the court grant, what in

many cases, turned out to be a 90-day order providing various means to protect

the individual in this particular situation.

Some of

the things that it could do, in many cases, it could grant the individual

exclusive occupancy of the family home, restraining orders, seizure of personal

property, seizure of weapons and also provide for some control of personal

property. It was to help these individuals out. The way it was set up was to be

done very quickly. It wasn't meant to be long term. It wasn't meant to be

permanent. It's meant to provide a diffusing effect on a very traumatic

situation.

Now, we

haven't seen many amendments to the act since that time. One of them actually

was to provide an appeal process to that because, in many cases, you would go in

and you literally could have an EPO granted against you and have no say in that

matter and it came with remedies. We all know the seriousness of violence but,

at the same time, we also know the rights that individuals have. It was never

meant to last forever. It was meant to get somebody out of a situation and then

allow for other measures and means to be put in place.

What

we're doing here, right now, the definition of family violence is as follows, it

encompasses: assaults; intentional, reckless or threatened acts or omissions

causing bodily harm or property damage or reasonable fear of same; forcible

confinement; sexual assault, exploitation or molestation or threats of same;

conduct that causes a reasonable fear of safety and deprivation of food,

clothing, medical attention, shelter or the other necessaries of life.

Those

are some very serious things here and it was primarily based on actual physical

harm or that fear of that harm being caused to an individual. What we're

proposing here today is an expansion to the definition of family violence to

include: psychological, emotional or financial harm.

To be

specific, what we're suggesting is that subsection 3(1) of the

Family Violence Protection Act would

be amended and deleting the word 'and' at the end of paragraph (

f) and adding

immediately after paragraph (

f) the following:

“(f.1)

conduct that causes psychological or emotional harm or a reasonable fear of that

harm, including a pattern of behaviour the purpose of which is to undermine the

psychological or emotional well-being of the applicant or a child;

“(f.2)

conduct that controls, exploits or limits the applicant's access to financial

resources for the purpose of ensuring the applicant's financial dependency.”

There's

also a second

section here that says that subsection 13(1) of the act would be

repealed and the following substituted: That an EPO prevails over a prior,

subsisting order made under the Divorce

Act or the Children's Law Act or a

provision of a subsisting agreement made under

Part IV of the

Family Law Act respecting custody of a

child.

It does

not prevail over a prior, subsisting order under the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act that places a child in

the care or custody of a manager appointed under that act or a prior subsisting

order under the Adult Protection Act

that places an adult in the care and custody of the provincial director.

Section

19 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: Nothing in the act

effects a duty set out in

section 11 of the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act

section 12 of the Adult Protection Act .

I want

to focus my attention on the main point here and the main point is the first

amendment. Basically, we're adding on to what is already there, psychological or

emotional harm, as well as harm to an individual's financial resources. That's

pretty significant.

One of

the things that we've seen – and, unfortunately, I presume there are many people

within this House that have had an opportunity to speak to individuals going

through traumatic situations like this. I personally had one very recently where

an individual was trying to leave a relationship but, financially, was unable

to. There were things being done to prevent this person from being able to leave

and get themselves in a better situation.

We also

telecommunications, between texting, Facebook and Twitter and things like that,

there are more means for people to communicate which also can carry with it

negative implications. We've seen things done recently. It's not an issue that

we dealt with years ago so much, but you see it now where the term revenge porn

is out there where you're deliberately putting out a private image of an

individual for the purpose of causing that individual harm. We have a number of

situations like that.

Speaking

to advocates, they say that when we talk about the traditional harm or abuse,

that it's not just physical. In fact, I had a question today during the media

briefing. I think it gave a really good corollary to what we're seeing in terms

of just health in general. The question was: We know what physical harm is but

what kind of burden is there, or how do you prove the emotional and

psychological? How is that going to be done in the courts?

I said

it's similar to when we talk about just health in general. We've always never

had an issue understanding the effect of a broken leg –you can see it, you can

look at it, it's right there – but we've always had a difficult time

understanding mental health. It's only now, we've made so many strides as a

province and as a country, and really in the world, where people are starting to

get it, but it was a long time coming. You can't see what's going on inside the

individual.

It's the

same thing with this. It can be, in many cases, very easy to document physical

harm and understand physical harm and abuse that comes in a relationship, but it

can be hard to document the emotional or the psychological. Generally, I think

there are ways to do this; our courts do this every day.

One

example, again, of financial is we have bank records and we have bank

statements. We have ways to look at this. It's all about taking away the

person's ability to continue to keep the control. That's what they want. In many

cases, it's a pattern that's been established and we need to disrupt that.

We have

a situation when it comes to emotional or physiological, this is why when we got

into court there are witnesses, there are other ways you can prove this, whether

its providing documentary evidence.

The big

thing to get through here, I think, is that in many cases before, someone would

come in to see a lawyer or a police officer or a social worker and because they

hadn't been struck, they were stuck there because the person didn't hit them,

but some of the other stuff that wasn't there, could cause, in many cases,

tremendous harm. What we're doing with this amendment is we are allowing for

that to be put forward and to be considered as harm under this act. We're trying

to make it easier for individuals to leave these situations where there is

violence.

actually had in the briefing today – there's a form that has to be filled out. I

actually have a copy of the form here so you will have to see that amended by

the provincial court.

I had a

question today: Why are we still filling that out? What I would suggest is we

still need to provide the explanation, the evidence and the allegations in order

to continue on. But I've also said very clearly that we have a system where it

operates a certain way, in many cases, within the legal system and the justice

system, it has always been that way. It's very backwards looking. We look to

precedent. I'm always open to looking at ways to improve.

The good

news too about this piece of legislation – and, again, I have to thank the media

today because they asked a question in the briefing, they said: Well, how are we

going to get this out to females, to women who want to see this? How are we

going to put it out there, this information? I said: You're doing it right now.

The very fact that we had this press conference and where the media were asking

questions about this, this is what we need to do. It's all about education and

awareness.

We'll

continue working with the groups that we work with, with the committee that we

work with, with the individuals in this House to get the word out. That's what

we have to do to make sure people know that when this legislation does get

approved – and I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this is not something that's

not going to happen. This is going to happen. We fully support this and I look

forward to the support of my colleagues across the way.

The good

news is that the Premier spoke about this recently and talked about this, which

has brought attention to it. One of the good things is that it has had some

attention in the media. I had one individual who spoke about it, and spoke very

positively, an advocate said: This is a step in the right direction. That's what

I want to think that it is. I want to think of it as a step. We are not to the

end of where we need to be but we're in the right direction, I'd like to think.

We also

had another individual who came out and had some concerns and said: Well, it

doesn't go far enough. What I say to that individual is: I understand. We never

said that this was going to fix everything. This is just one more step in a

number of steps that we take across government. I know my colleague the minister

responsible for Women's Policy is at this every single day within her

department. We will have more policy, more legislation, more change.

colleague, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, this is a

passion. The Member for Windsor Lake, this is a passion. Do you know what? It's

not just a passion of the female Members of our caucus. This is a passion of all

the Members of our caucus.

I've

heard a lot of people talking when we talk about awareness, it's not just we

have to educate boys and girls. We have to educate everybody and I really do

think we have to get to our youngest.

When we

talk about these issues, it's not just a Justice issue, it really does span

through government, it spans across society. Every one of us in this House, on

both sides, care about this.

speaking to that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that this is a step in the right

direction. I think we're doing something here that will positively benefit

individuals that find themselves in terrible situations. We're going to work

towards making more positive change for individuals in this province.

I look

forward to the debate and the comments from my colleagues across the way,

especially during second reading and as we move into the Committee stage.

Again,

I'd like to thank all those individuals, the individuals who sat on the meeting

from this side. There were four or five ministers. There were individuals from

different labour groups. I'd like to thank those. They know who they are. They

came in and we're working on it. We want to work with them. I'd also like to

thank everybody in the Department of Justice and Public Safety who've taken it

on as one of their priorities as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to continuing the debate on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's certainly a pleasure to rise once again in this

hon. House on behalf of the people of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, once we arrive here in this hon. House, it

is the duty and responsibility of each and every one of us as parliamentarians

to do what we can in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador as a whole.

I'm

pleased the government opposite has brought this very important bill before the

House of Assembly for this session. It's certainly a very interesting bill. It

looks like it will do a lot to improve the safety for women here in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

We do

have questions pertaining to the bill. We will be discussing those as we move

into Committee stage of the bill and third reading, Mr. Speaker. This, being

second reading, I certainly will just take a few moments to talk about some of

the highlights of the bill and some of the areas where we see some value.

It adds

three forms of family violence to the legislation: emotional, psychological and

financial, Mr. Speaker. That's a move in the right direction. The minister, as

many people in the province aware, has recently established a Committee on

Violence Against Women and Girls. It's a very important committee and we're

going to be doing some great work, I have no doubt, on that committee.

This

bill, in particular, speaks to family violence as a whole. It ensures that we

strengthen protections for seniors and for men, Mr. Speaker. We often talk about

violence against women and girls, a very serious issue, but we can never forget

that men, too, can be victims of violence and seniors can be victims of

violence. We parliamentarians do have a responsibility to address all forms of

violence to all persons in our province.

This

bill has three main objectives: to expand the definition of family violence, as

I just said, to include psychological, emotional or financial harm; to provide

that emergency protection orders, or EPOs you may hear them referred to as the

debate goes on, do not prevail over certain orders under the

Adult Protection Act and the

protection is already written into the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act and it provides that nothing in

the act affects the duty to report set out in the

Adult Protection Act .

Mr.

Speaker, I was happy in my tenure here in the House to have participated in

changes to those acts as well. It's certainly some of the more meaningful work,

I would say, that we do here in this hon. House; work that affects the lives and

well-being of each and every one of our citizens.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill updates the legislation to accurately

reflect the title name of recently adopted legislation. It replaces references

to the Child, Youth and Family Services

Act , the old one, with references to the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act

which is the newer version.

Some of

the proposed amendments contained here in the bill:

section 3 of the

Family Violence Protection Act

currently defines family violence as assaults; acts or omissions causing bodily

harm or property damage or reasonable fear of the same; forcible confinement;

sexual assaults; exploitation or molestation or threats of same; conduct that

causes a reasonable fear of safety, for example, following or recording someone;

deprivation of food, clothing, medical attention, shelter or other necessities

of life.

Section

1 of the amendment would expand that definition of family violence to also

include, in addition to those I have just listed: “conduct that causes

psychological or emotional harm or a reasonable fear of that harm, including a

pattern of behaviour the purpose of which is to undermine the

psychological or emotional well-being of the applicant or a child” and “ conduct

that controls, exploits or limits the applicant's access to financial resources

for the purpose of ensuring the applicant's financial dependency ….”

Section

2 of the amendment states that: An emergency protection order does not prevail

over an order under the Adult Protection

Act that places an adult in the care and custody of the director of Adult

Protection or another person. This is similar to the existing provision that

provides that an emergency protection order does not prevail over placing a

child or youth in the custody of a child, youth and family services manager or a

person other than the parent from whom the child was removed.

Mr.

Speaker,

section 3 of the amendment would provide that nothing in the

Family Violence Protection Act affects

the duty to report under the Adult

Protection Act .

Section 12 of the

Adult Protection Act requires a person who reasonably believes that

an adult may be an adult in need of protective intervention to immediately give

that information, along with the name and address of the adult, to the

provincial director, a social worker or a peace officer. The

Family Violence Protection Act already

provides for this duty in relation to children or youth.

Mr. Speaker, that's significant because, again, as I said

in my earlier comments, we have a duty here in this hon. House to protect each

and every citizen. The more we can do to ensure our seniors are protected, all

of our children are protected, all of our women are protected – and our men. I

will say again that although it's not as common, it certainly does happen. We

need to be cognizant of the fact that each and every citizen deserves

protection.

This piece of legislation is certainly

going to strengthen our

efforts in that regard. I certainly am pleased to see any effort to improve how

we ensure the safety and well-being of our residents, Mr. Speaker. This bill is

progress in that regard.

Like I

said, we do still have a number of questions that we will be asking as the

debate proceeds. But it certainly seems like reasonable amendments as

physiological, emotional or financial harm is already taken into account during

the existing process. This simply solidifies it in legislation and defines it.

It's a

necessary amendment and one that will make the process more user-friendly for

the applicant and the victim to define their situation. This is certainly a

positive move, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to participating in this debate with

my colleagues in this hon. House.

Not just

ourselves as parliamentarians – we have a responsibility to enshrine protections

into the law – but each and every one of us as citizens have a duty to protect

and care for others, including seniors, including children and including women.

We have a duty to report wrong doings that we see.

The

bystander effect is something that can no longer be tolerated. In standing by

and observing any form of abuse, you are actually condoning the behaviour of the

perpetrator, allowing it to continue and worsen. Who knows how many more people

will be impacted.

All

measures like this that we can introduce and enforce are certainly of benefit to

the people who are victims of violence. This is certainly a very important bill

that we have before us here in the House. I look forward to proceeding with the

debate on this bill in the coming days.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For

those that are just tuning in I'd like to say that we're debating Bill 1, the

Family Violence Protection Act . It's

an amendment.

The bill

will amend the Family Violence Protection

Act to expand the definition of family violence; to replace references to

the Child, Youth and Family Services Act

with references to the Children and Youth

Care and Protection Act ; provide that emergency protection orders do not

prevail over certain other orders under the

Adult Protection Act ; and provide that

nothing in the act affects the duty to report set out in the

Adult Protection Act .

This is

a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad the Member opposite spoke

firmly and positively. I think everybody in this House recognizes that violence

in any way, shape or form, harassment, abuse, bullying is not tolerated, it's

not to be tolerated, not to be accepted – not to be acceptable in our society.

By expanding this definition of family violence, it's now including

psychological, emotional and financial harm.

Many

people who have come to me – now that I'm Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women – have told me their stories. It is sad when you hear of the violence that

some people have to endure in our society. They often tell me that it starts

with some psychological abuse. It starts with financial abuse. It starts with

controls being put in place. Mr. Speaker, this act now will offer those people

protection before it gets to an escalated situation.

I'm

proud of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. I can tell you

without reserve, and I tell the people of this province and everyone here today

present, that he is very focused on ensuring violence against women is not

acceptable, but also that protections are there. The changes that are required

in any legislation in our society, he's working to address that.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we started an inter-ministerial committee because

this is so broad. It reaches into many aspects, into Education, into Health and

Community Services, into services that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

offers; many, many departments. So we now have this ministerial committee that

will hopefully – no, will, I won't say hopefully. It will make changes that are

required to address the concerns that have been expressed to us, the concerns

that we know as a society.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to stand in the House today to discuss these proposed

amendments to the Family Violence

Protection Act . I think they will have significant impact to the lives of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians experiencing that psychological, emotional and

financial harm. I certainly stand here as Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women in support of this. I think everybody in the House will be in support.

As the

Minister of Justice and Public Safety said, is it enough? No, of course not, but

it, again, moves us in the right direction. I think that's important. It was

very telling to have everyone in this House in support of the – or everyone on

this side of the House in support of the recent Speech from the Throne and talk

about and include this, include issues around harm to women, include issues

around family violence and make this Bill 1. So I'm pleased to see that.

I had

the privilege earlier this week – and it's hard to believe it's the same week,

Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege of joining ministers and parliamentarians from

across Canada and around the world, as well as members of civil society, of

labour, and I congratulate – labour's been very, very active on these files and

have come to see us on many occasions and are working to ensure the protections

of women and to ensure the equality of women.

People

from the educational community were there at the United Nations Commission on

the Status of Women. It was held in New York City at the UN. And the session at

the United Nations really was integral to advancing the rights and equality of

women and girls. It is an honour, it certainly was an honour to be there and be

part of that, of an empowering general assembly. It was certainly – to

participate in the sessions on gender-based violence, to participate in sessions

on equality and how to ensure equality – very empowering.

It was

said during that assembly, and I said it in the House earlier this week, that

evidence proves that investing in gender equality and the health, rights and

well-being of girls and women creates a ripple effect that spurs growth and

progress for all.

Our

government is committed to advancing the status of women and girls in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we've seen that this week in the Speech from

the Throne and in the introduction of Bill 1. We do not want half the population

to be left behind in opportunity or advancement. I think what you're seeing

really does speak to the voice of a government in trying to eradicate, trying to

ameliorate all forms of violence, abuse and bullying to make sure that we are

addressing the concerns women have in that way, but also to make sure that we

are putting in policies and programs to ensure equality of women, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to quote just one very significant paragraph that I found in the Speech from the

Throne. It said, “Raising standards and expectations for how our society treats

women is an important focus for our Government. Violence against women and girls

is one of the most serious issues facing society today. Unfortunately, many

women continue to experience violence. Fifty per cent” – 50 per cent, one in two

– “over the age of 15 have experienced or will experience at least one incident

of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime. The likelihood of experiencing

violence is tripled” – tripled, Mr. Speaker – “for Indigenous women. Violence,

in any form, is unacceptable.”

That was

right from the Speech from the Throne. I think what you're seeing is truly – and

I went back to other Speeches from the Throne, and I found making sure that

women's voices were heard, making sure that we are addressing these issue. We

cannot wait one moment longer to do so.

Numbers

are startling. I just told you that 50 per cent of women over the age of 15 – 50

per cent – will have or will experience at least incident of sexual or physical

assault or violence in their lifetime. The likelihood of indigenous women is

tripled.

One of

the initiatives of the Women's Policy Office is the Violence Prevention

Initiative. The initiative is a multi-departmental provincial government's

community partnership to find long-term solutions to the problems of violence

against those who are most at risk in our society. The Violence Prevention

Initiative recognizes nine types of violence and abuse including physical,

sexual, emotional, psychological, spiritual, cultural and verbal violence, as

well as financial abuse and neglect.

Now by

updating the Family Violence Protection

Act to broaden the definition of violence we are better aligning this

legislation with how abuse is defined by the Violence Prevention Initiative, the

Adult Protection Act and the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act ,

which includes those forms of harm.

Expanding this definition to include psychological, emotional and financial harm

allows the provincial government to convey the importance of recognizing these

forms of violence. Changing how the government defines violence helps change how

the public perceives that violence. A more inclusive definition through the

Family Violence Protection Act will

convey a more thorough understanding of what constitutes a violent act and

reflect what the public views as unacceptable behaviour.

This

change will enable survivors of those types of violence to have access to

programming they would not otherwise be able to access and will bring

Newfoundland and Labrador in line with other jurisdictions across Canada. Most

all other Canadian provinces have legislation similar to the act. Of the other

jurisdictions, four have legislation that include broad definition of family

violence, that includes both psychological, emotional abuse and financial abuse.

Three other jurisdictions include psychological or emotional abuse but do not

include financial harm.

As a

government, we are proactively making changes to better meet the needs of women

and girls experiencing violence, and those actions are not limited to those

proposed today. We have heard from stakeholders and from survivors who have

experienced the need for changes such as these. We heard, we acted and we'll

continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Following the release of the Violence Prevention Initiative action plan back in

2015, we've consulted in all regions across the province. This has helped us

guide and refine our ongoing initiatives related to violence prevention,

including the Working Together for

Violence-Free Communities action plan which is a living document, Mr.

Speaker, and is responsive to the needs of the community.

While we

have implemented many of the actions of the plan, we know that we must continue

our work to prevent violence and harassment in our schools, workplaces and

communities. Working Together for

Violence-Free Communities is a living document, as I said, and responsive to

the needs of our communities. This allows us, as a government, to respond when

action must be taken to prevent and eliminate violence. This year, we will

further explore how we can build on the progress so far.

Most

recently, at the December 8 meeting of the Ministers Committee on Violence

Against Women and Girls, stakeholders, again, stressed the importance for the

system to be more responsive to the needs of survivors of violence and to

provide culturally appropriate services. They also discussed ways to improve the

justice system, including the importance of updating emergency protection orders

to better respond to women, girls and anyone experiencing violence. Changing the

definition of violence in the act is a step in the right direction.

complement the ongoing work, as I earlier said, I'm pleased to chair the

committee of ministers representing multiple departments tasked with addressing

issues of violence in our society, in our communities. This committee oversees

collective actions to address issues of violence in the province. The committee

consists of ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety; Education and

Early Childhood Development; Health and Community Services; Children, Seniors

and Social Development; Service NL and Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

Through

these efforts we are ensuring the voices of those experiencing violence or

harassment are heard when we are updating any program and policy throughout

government. We're committed to providing safe learning and work environments for

everyone, but especially girls and women. Currently, legislation and policy,

including the Safe and Caring Schools Policy, the

Residential Tenancies Act and the

Municipalities Act are being reviewed to that end.

By examining current policies, programs and legislation, we

are working to address root causes. We accomplish this through initiatives such

as mental health and addictions initiatives, including implementing

recommendations from Towards Recovery ,

a report by the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions; housing,

including the upcoming provincial housing plan to end homelessness; the Poverty

Reduction Strategy and other

programs and measures to reduce income equality.

Ending

violence requires a collective response and it is not the work of any one

committee, one community group or government department. Our government works in

collaboration with community stakeholders to find long-term solutions to

eradicate violence.

The

Women's Policy Office provides core funding to 10 regional committees against

violence, eight women's centres, the Transition House Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre. These

organizations provide valuable services to survivors of violence in our

communities. We are proud to partner with these organizations.

This

includes the Safe Harbour Outreach Project, which received core funding

recently. This program supports sex workers who are at a higher risk for

violence but are less likely to receive medical care or other community supports

due to the stigma they have to experience in the community.

We also

fund the Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Unit with the RNC and the RCMP who

ensure that our police forces receive training and support. This way, when they

respond to a call related to intimate partner violence, they know the best way

to ensure that the survivor of violence has access to the supports that she

needs.

We also

fund the Multicultural Women's Organization of Newfoundland and Labrador. This

organization provides a variety of services to women with broad-ranging

backgrounds and experiences. The women at the Multicultural Women's Organization

of Newfoundland and Labrador provide culturally and language-specializing

programs to ensure that all women in Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of,

know how, and are empowered to access the programming and services that are

available to them. This is not only important for those women but also

encourages women who immigrate to Newfoundland and Labrador to stay here, raise

their families and help us to build our province for future generations.

We also

supply support for indigenous women as well as men, girls and boys through the

Indigenous Violence Prevention Grants Program. This program provides project

funding to indigenous organizations and governments to identify and implement

culturally appropriate responses to violence. Indigenous women are particularly

susceptible, as I said earlier, to violence, and across the country they are

three times higher than a non-indigenous woman to experience assault, and six

times more likely to be murdered, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, we provide funding for the Indigenous Violence Prevention Grants Program.

This year $205,000 in project funding was announced in February during the

province's Violence Prevention Month.

Projects

eligible to receive funding include those that focus on developing violence

prevention action plans, public awareness and education materials or activities,

providing healing programs in relation to the effects of violence, improving

programs and services at shelters for indigenous women, developing community

capacity and leadership and improving cultural strength of indigenous

communities with the objective of reducing violence.

We also

support indigenous women in finding culturally appropriate responses to violence

in their community through the empowering indigenous women for stronger

communities project funded by Status of Women Canada. On November 21 and 22,

2017, Mr. Speaker, the Women's Policy Office, in collaboration with the

provincial Indigenous Women's Conference steering committee, hosted the 10th

provincial Indigenous Women's Conference. This year's conference brought

together women representatives from indigenous governments and organizations to

discuss the direction of the three-year project.

It's a

very innovative project that brings together women leaders from every indigenous

organization and government in our province. There is no other project like this

across Canada. I attended the conference; the positive energy was evident from

all attendees. It was certainly about coming together to solve the issues, to

share the problems and to find the best ways to deliver programming. The

conference provided an opportunity for indigenous leaders to discuss and

identify strategies related to four issues acknowledged as priority areas in

indigenous communities: Violence against women, mental health, homelessness and

reconnecting generations and engaging youth.

The

prevention of violence and harassment in our homes, in our schools, in our

workplaces and our communities is everyone's responsibility. Changes such as

those proposed today indicate our government's steadfast commitment to those

experiencing violence in our province.

Our

commitment is this: You are not alone. If you are experiencing violence in any

way, if you're having issues, please reach out. We certainly want to make sure

that you have the supports around you that you need.

We'll

continue working to prevent and eliminate violence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is another step forward, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the minister for

bringing it forward to this House and I thank my hon. colleagues for their

support.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you for giving me an opportunity to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill 1.

It's, no doubt, an important bill. More importantly, it's an important topic in

our society today, not only in our society, Mr. Speaker, but virtually

everywhere, certainly, in Canada, the United States.

It's a

very important topic of violence and abuse that occurs. To amend the

Family Violence Protection Act to

improve and strengthen

definitions is always a positive step in the right

direction.

Mr.

Speaker, what this bill will do is expand the definition of family violence. I

heard the Premier last week make a comment that it was going to redefine

assault, but I think what he was actually meaning was it's going to expand the

definition of family violence.

The

difference, Mr. Speaker, is that assault is a form of family violence. All

family violence is not necessarily a form of assault, but assault is a form of

family violence. I think the broader term of family violence is important to use

and recognize. Expanding the definition for this under the

Family Violence Protection Act is

going to strengthen the ability to apply for actions and resolutions under the

act.

Emergency protection orders came into being, Mr. Speaker, I think about eight or

nine years ago, if I remember correctly. Maybe a little bit longer than that,

maybe about 10 or 11 years. In 2007 I think it finally came into being. They

allow for an intervention when sometimes no other alternatives are available.

The reality of family violence is that it can happen anywhere at any time.

There's no neighbourhood or community who can say it's never going to happen in

our community, it's never going to happen in our area. There's no time of day or

day of the week where you can say it's not going to take place.

In the

province today we have what's known as WASH Court, which refers to weekends and

statutory holidays. It allows for court to take place 365 days a year, 12 months

a year, throughout the entire year – obviously, 365 days a year is throughout

the year. It provides that important service. It's not interrupted by weekends

or holidays or Sundays or statutory holidays or if it's Christmas or Easter; the

justice system will continue to flow.

Mr.

Speaker, the current act defines some aspects of family violence. I had a look

at the Women's Policy Office; I went to their particular site. The minister

opposite, I know, just spoke to this; I listened to her comments this afternoon.

The act

right now, currently, only applies to some of the forms of domestic violence

that are recognized by the Women's Policy Office. The Women's Policy Office,

it's available on their website. There's a

section on defining violence and

abuse, and it actually outlines nine distinct forms of violence and abuse.

includes physical assault, sexual assault, emotional violence, psychological

violence, spiritual violence, cultural violence, verbal abuse, financial abuse

and neglect. The current legislation under the

Family Violence Protection Act , when I

look at

section 3(1), it defines family violence and it means one or more of the

following acts or omissions committed against an applicant or a child by a

respondent.

It goes

on to lay out – the first one is assault. An assault here under this act

consists of an intentional application of force that causes the applicant to

fear for his or her safety but does not include

an act committed in

self-defence. It also outlines an intentional, reckless or threatened act or

omission that causes bodily harm or damage to property; an intentional, reckless

or threatening act or omission that causes a reasonable fear of bodily or damage

to property. It also outlines forcible physical confinement without lawful

authority.

The

second specific distinct form of violence listed on the Women's Policy Office

site refers to sexual violence. That's also referred to in the

Family Violence Protection Act where it outlines sexual assault,

sexual exploitation, sexual molestation or the threat of sexual assault, sexual

exploitation or sexual molestation.

Even

though this act lays out different forms, specific forms, I know the

Criminal Code of Canada refers now

only to sexual assault. At one time in the Criminal Code, Mr. Speaker, and you'd

be somewhat familiar with it, it laid out different, defined forms of sexual

assault. Today's criminal law refers to sexual assault and encompasses a very

broad range, a full broad range, and then there could be sexual assault causing

bodily harm and so on, but the definition of sexual assault really depends on

the circumstance in many ways.

So the

current act has that as well. The current act also talks somewhat about what I

would consider under number seven of the nine distinct forms of violence and

abuse, as outlined by the Women's Policy Office, and that's under the next

paragraph here, it refers to conduct that causes the applicant to reasonably

fear for his or her safety, including contacting, communicating with, observing

or recording a person; deprivation of food, clothing, medical attention,

shelter, transportation or other necessities of life.

By doing

that verbally would somewhat cover what the Women's Policy Office defines as

verbal abuse. On their site, by the way, they define – I was going to say

diagnose, but they don't diagnose verbal abuse, they define verbal abuse as:

Verbal abuse occurs when someone uses language, whether spoken or written, to

cause harm to an individual.

Mr.

Speaker, that allows then, under the current act, these three areas of nine, and

what the bill is going to do, is it's going to add emotional violence,

psychological violence and financial abuse to the legislation. It's laid out in

the bill: “conduct that causes psychological or emotional harm or a

reasonable fear of that harm, including a pattern of behavior” – so it doesn't

have to be a single event, it can be a pattern of behaviour – “the purpose of

which is to undermine the psychological or emotional well-being of the applicant

or a child.”

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for psychological and

emotional abuse to be a pattern, over a long period of time, not a single event

but for a period of time where it's that pattern of constant emotional or

psychological harm or fear of harm or threat or a pattern of behaviour exists,

and the bill covers that. So that's three and four on the list from the Women's

Policy Office.

It also covers then: “conduct that controls, exploits or

limits the applicant's access to financial resources for the purpose of ensuring

the applicant's financial dependency.” Financial abuse is number eight on the

list on the Women's Policy Office. Financial abuse they refer to and the Women's

Policy Office refers to: “Financial abuse occurs when someone controls an

individual's financial resources without the person's consent or misuses those

resources.”

Similar kind of intend, it sounds like, Mr. Speaker, as

laid out here in the bill, but a different language. Plain language instead of

legislative language is used by the Women's Policy Office on their website.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, by the way, it's a very

interesting read for me to go on the Women's Policy website to have a look at

this and to read through it because it's not a bad thing. It's a good thing, to

take some time for all of us to better understand violence, to better understand

what some people and some families have to endure and experience. If we never

had that as an issue, these items wouldn't be listed out on their website, Mr.

Speaker, but we do.

Not only do we have the Women's Policy Office, but we also

have a large number of community stakeholders throughout our province. Many,

many areas of our province who are there to assist and support, particularly

women and girls, women of all ages and younger women and girls as well, who need

help and assistance because

of incidents of violence or fear of violence or under a threat or duress or

anyone of these nine distinct forms of violence or abuse that occurs. Mr.

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to express our thanks and

appreciation and acknowledge the importance of the work they do.

actually spoke to a stakeholder today, early this morning, about this very bill

and very topic. The person I spoke with this morning raised the fact that it's a

good thing they're adding to the definition, but also pointed out that one of

the issues and concerns when it comes to family violence in our province today

is how challenging the limited resources are for those who work to help others

and that the resources are very challenged.

While

they are expanding the definition, which is a good thing – all these resources

that work in the community, Mr. Speaker, they'll respond and help and assist in

any of these distinct defined areas of violence or abuse, but it's not just

recognized in the legislation. One of them today said to me, while they

recognize the importance of including more distinct forms of violence and abuse,

it's also saying we don't have the resources to cover the incidents that are

seen today. They're very challenged by that, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's an

important point to make.

One of

the questions we're going to get to in Committee, maybe later today, is that

there are still three forms of violence that are not included in the

legislation. Three forms of violence and abuse, distinct forms and

definitions

of violence and abuse that are not referred to in the legislation. I'm sure

we'll have time to ask the minister later today for some discussion on why they

were left out of the bill or why they are not being considered here.

One of

those is spiritual violence, which is defined as spiritual or religious violence

occurs when someone uses an individual's spiritual beliefs to manipulate,

dominate or control that person. The second one here is cultural violence; I'll

get back to that one in a second. The third one is neglect. Neglect under the

Women's Policy Office occurs when someone has the responsibility to provide care

and assistance for an individual but does not do it.

I want

to go back to cultural for a minute because the minister just referred to some

of the work being done with indigenous communities and indigenous members of our

population. We'll be looking for some discussion in Committee on why cultural

violence would have been left out of the bill, because cultural violence occurs

when an individual is harmed as a result of practices that are part of his or

her culture, religion or traditions.

I'm not

sure why that wouldn't have been included. We're going to expand the bill. We

thought it would have been important to consider all forms of violence as

defined by the government themselves. They haven't done that. So we're going to

ask some questions about that when we get to Committee.

Mr.

Speaker, the bill also does a couple of other things. It replaces references to

the Child, Youth and Family Services Act

that are outdated because the new act has changed language; director versus

manager as an example. It's also going to refer to the

Adult Protection Act and it's going to “provide that emergency

protection orders do not prevail over certain orders under the

Adult Protection Act ….” I expect

today we're going to have some discussion about that.

What the

Adult Protection Act does, in a

nutshell – and just very briefly – there are cases in our province, I've seen

them myself over the years, where an adult is living in a circumstance where

they're just not able, for one reason or another, to care for themselves. They

need intervention and they need someone else to help them live. Prior to the

Adult Protection Act , there was no

legal authority for anyone to have an influence or to try and improve the

quality of life for that person. That's essentially what the

Adult Protection Act does.

For

example, if I have a friend or family member, or someone I don't know, they can

be placed in my care under the Adult

Protection Act . Maybe that person, for some reason, is not able to care

properly for themselves. That responsibility can be placed on an individual such

as myself.

What the

bill does here is that in a case of an emergency protection order – and I should

talk about those a little bit – an emergency protection order will not prevail

over a person who has been designated under the

Adult Protection Act . We have two people, as I read this here – and

we had a discussion about it in the briefing. I thank the minister and the

officials in the department for a good briefing and discussion we had a couple

of days ago on the bill.

outlines that the Adult Protection Act

will prevail over an emergency protection order. An emergency protection order –

I referred a little bit earlier to WASH court and courts available. In a case of

a family disturbance – I've seen many, many times on a Friday night at 11

o'clock or on a Sunday morning or Saturday morning at 2 o'clock in the morning

all the resources available during a business day would not be available.

emergency protection order is a mechanism to seek an emergency protection for an

individual when there may be violence or threat of violence or fear of violence

in a home, yet no criminal act has taken place or there's no ability to lay a

criminal charge or make a criminal arrest. It allows, as an option, to apply to

a judge and say: I need an intervention, we need an intervention here. Or an

individual applies to the judge and says: I need an intervention, I need your

help to make sure that I can be kept safe. The order is designed to do that on a

temporary basis.

What

this act reflects is that if an adult protection order is in place, an emergency

protection orde