PDF Version

March 8, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 51

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

public gallery today I am very pleased to welcome members of the Provincial

Apprenticeship and Certification Board who will be referenced in a Ministerial

Statement.

With us

today we have the Chair, Mr. David Harris, Craig Randell, Joann Greeley,

Jennifer Hillier, Amanda Cull, Geordie Walsh, Tyson Hedge, Karen Rowe, Karen

Walsh and Mona Morrow.

They are

joined by staff members of the apprenticeship and certification division of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery, I

would like to recognize Ms. Brenda O'Brien, who will be mentioned in a Member's

statement today. She is accompanied by her daughter, Alice O'Brien.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would like to send out a

special hello out in another gallery, to that of our television broadcast. I

would like to send special greetings to Labrador and Ms. Roxanne Rose's grade

three class at Peacock Primary. I was recently a guest reader at the school's

Project Read. It's a week-long activity focused on reading for pleasure at home

and in school. They are tuning in today as they wanted to learn a bit more about

our Legislature and what their elected officials are up to.

So,

greetings to the class.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

So behave.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members'

statements, we will hear from the District of St. George's - Humber, St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi, Placentia West - Bellevue, Cape St. Francis and Windsor Lake.

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Verena

Trask was born in the historic community of Sandy Point in Bay St. George, and

this coming Monday she will be celebrating her 100th birthday.

In 1952,

Verena and her husband, Isaac Trask of Elliston, moved their family to Indian

Head and later relocated to Seal Cove in Stephenville Crossing to be closer to

the school for their children and to become more involved in the community.

Verena

and her husband – who passed away in 1983 – had 11 children. Their family has

continued to grow and she now has 21 grandchildren, 17 great-grandchildren, and

two great-great grandchildren.

Verena

is known by many for her kindness and she's also known as a skilled seamstress

who has over the years made hundreds of dresses and suits for graduations,

weddings and other special occasions.

Verena

is still very active. She loves to knit, she loves to go shopping and she loves

to share stories with members of her family and her many friends. Her family is

very proud of her, and she is loved and respected in the community.

I ask

all Members of the House to join with me in wishing Verena Trask a happy 100th

birthday this coming Monday.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm so

pleased on International Women's Day to recognize a constituent who is the

essence of the unsung heroine, as are so many women.

Wife,

mother, activist Brenda O'Brien for the past 14 years has been an untiring

advocate for her own son and all children on the autism spectrum. Brenda has

devoted her life to working with teachers, principals and counsellors to ensure

that the schools her son and other children with special needs attend are

welcoming and truly inclusive.

She

researches intently what can be done and engages knowledgeably with

professionals in trying to attain solutions to problems, believing beyond a

doubt that there is always a solution.

She has

raised awareness in our educational system about the human rights of children

with autism and developmental disabilities. She was instrumental in getting

early intervention extended to children with autism beyond the age of six.

Brenda

continues to advocate for accommodation in the school system.

I ask

all Members of the House of Assembly to applaud this wonderful woman, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

stand today to recognize two young people from Marystown who, in their own ways,

are shining a light on mental health.

Chloe

Walsh of Little Bay is pursuing graduate studies in psychology at the University

of Glasgow in Scotland. But, there, her pursuit has extended beyond purely an

academic quest. She is one of five students named by the university as a Future

World Changer. Chloe's ambition is to make more people mindful of their mental

health, as well as normalizing the language used to describe it.

Teenager

Jimmy Bonnell, of Marystown, is also making a difference. After struggling with

mental health, he has transformed himself into a power of good for others. He

has started the free Burin Peninsula Teen Mental Health Peer Support Group and

describes it as an opportunity for people to share their personal battles with

others to show them that there are brighter days ahead.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking them both and encourage

anyone out there struggling to check out one of Chloe's videos or drop by one of

Jimmy's sessions.

Mr.

Speaker, mental health challenges have become the issue of our time. But

thankfully advocates and leaders like Chloe and Jimmy are stepping forward to

help #endthestigma together.

Thank

you, 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 rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate everyone involved in the 2018 Snowfest

celebrations in the Towns of Flatrock and Pouch Cove. Mr. Speaker, the energy

and the dedication of many volunteers made this event successful again this

year.

Snowfest

was filled with a variety of fun activities for all ages: family game night,

seniors' social and outing, an ice fishing derby, an afternoon tea and bake

sale, a hot roast beef and moose supper, bingo, general skate, a card game and

dances for both children and adults.

Many

local groups were involved including the recreation and heritage committees, the

school council, the Lions Club, the volunteer fire department and firettes, the

church and, of course, the local musicians and performers.

All

activities were well organized, well attended and I know a great time was had by

all. It was truly a community celebration.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating and thanking the organizers and

volunteers for this year's Snowfest celebration. It was a fantastic time and a

job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Since its inception in 2008,

Smiling Land Foundation strives to spread the warm and welcoming Newfoundland

and Labrador and East Coast culture and spirit to the rest of Canada. This group

of ex-pat Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have raised and donated in excess of

$1.4 million to deserving charities benefiting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Daffodil

Place, Ronald McDonald House, The Gathering Place, Stella's Circle, Artistic

Fraud, the Vera Perlin Society, Boys & Girls Clubs of St. John's, young parents

association, Rainbow Riders, Special Olympics, Health Care Foundation, the Dr.

H. Bliss Murphy Centre, the Home from the Sea Sealers Memorial in Elliston, LSPU

Hall, Torngat Mountains Base Camp youth leadership program and Froude Avenue

Community Centre – all benefactors of the work of these passionate native sons

and daughters.

This

year marks Smiling Land Foundation's 10th anniversary and final fundraising

event for this remarkable group. Funds raised on May 12 will be used to

establish a scholarship fund for Newfoundland and Labrador youth.

We are

proud of your efforts and so grateful for your commitment to home. Thank you to

these amazing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, despite living away, found a

unique way to help their neighbour – giving back to the province they love.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has

been a year of advancement for women. The role of the #metoo and #timesup

movements in that change is recognized, as is the leadership roles women have

taken.

Today

the #pressforprogress continues to ensure women's rights are respected and

equality assured, here and around the world.

On International Women's Day, we express our gratitude and

recognize the contributions of women and girls in our province, both past and

present. We acknowledge women's equality-seeking and anti-violence organizations

who work to advance true equality for women and girls.

In this province progress continues as our government

introduces and advances many programs and initiatives to empower, protect and

advance women. I am pleased to chair a ministerial committee across government

departments to oversee collective actions to address issues of violence in our

province and advance equality. This is in addition to the Justice Minister's

Committee to End Violence Against Women and Girls that engages community groups

on this issue, as well as the tremendous work being carried out throughout the

province through our violence prevention initiatives. Strengthened workplace

harassment policies in the public sector have also been introduced.

Government continues to work collaboratively with industry

and community organizations to advance economic opportunity. For example, we are

ensuring opportunities for women in the trades and technology sectors by

increasing the number of women in trades through women's employment plans and

gender equity and diversity plans for large projects in the province.

In the hon. House, today and every day, let us all work

together to advance true equality – social, legal, cultural, economic and

political – for all women and girls in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are all

part of the human race – 52 per cent of us just want to be treated equally and

respectfully. Let us all recommit today to doing just that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Our caucus wishes to join

with government, community leaders and society to celebrate International

Women's Day. Today is the day to recognize the accomplishments of women and

encourage all women to reach for the stars, stand strong in the face of

adversity and follow your dreams.

Mr.

Speaker, today is also a day to acknowledge the contributions of the

hard-working groups who advocate for women's equality and anti-violence. To

them, I give my sincere, heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

We all

have inspirational women in our lives including our mothers, our sisters, our

friends and female leaders the world over who have demonstrated the courage,

strength and resiliency to fight for equality. I'm so proud of each and every

one of you.

For

today, I would especially like to thank my hon. female colleagues. While we may

not always agree on policy, I respect and admire each and every one of you.

Thank you for stepping up to bring female voices to the government table.

If I may

modify the words of Helen Reddy: We are women, hear us roar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister. Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day, I celebrate in

honour of the amazing work undertaken by all women across our province.

Racialized women, women with disabilities, women in the LGBTQ two-spirited

community, younger, older, rural women, immigrant women, women who helped

develop the fishery, who heal our sick, feed our hungry, who raise and teach our

children, keep our commerce going, who serve through elected office, feminists,

equality seekers, change makers: Thank you, my sisters.

Especially, I acknowledge our indigenous sisters who today are in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay telling their stories and demanding change at the inquiry for

murdered and missing indigenous women. We are with them in sisterhood and we

honour their courage.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

pleasure today to stand and read this minister's statement.

I was

pleased to have the opportunity to join a meeting of the Provincial

Apprenticeship and Certification Board earlier this morning. The meeting marks a

significant milestone as it's the board's 100th meeting.

The

board plays an important role in the province's apprenticeship system. Its

mandate includes accrediting institutions to deliver apprenticeship programs,

designating occupations for apprenticeship and providing advice to the

provincial government on labour market matters related to training and

certification.

I am

pleased to inform my hon. colleagues of many new developments underway as we

continue to work with the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board.

recently announced online training for apprentices. The first blocks of training

for five trades were selected for this pilot initiative, which will enable

apprentices to continue their training while working.

We are

partnering with the Maritime provinces and Manitoba on a shared IT system to

streamline the steps to completing an apprenticeship program. Work is also

continuing on the Atlantic Apprenticeship Harmonization Project, with 10 trades

already completed and six more in progress.

Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to collaborate with industry and our post-secondary

institutions to ensure that we are responsive and meeting emerging needs in the

province.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating members of the Provincial

Apprenticeship and Certification Board on their 100th meeting and commending

them for their important work and their contributions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of 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 also

congratulates the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board on its 100th

meeting. The board plays a vital role in this province, enables many women and

men the opportunity to progress and excel in their trades.

This is

a benefit, not just to these individuals but to the economy and the province as

a whole. The Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board was established

in 1953, and to now see the current members reach this milestone of 100th

meeting is certainly a milestone we recognize.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and join with him in

congratulating the members of the Apprenticeship and Certification Board for

their work in advancing apprentices through the system.

On this

International Women's Day, I also congratulate the women in Resource Development

Corporation and the Office to Advance Women Apprentices. Both organizations have

done outstanding work helping women apprentices get jobs and move on to

journeyperson status. They've done much to help employers appreciate the

excellent skills women bring to these jobs, and I'm sure the minister will also

collaborate with these organizations.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday we learned that NLC had terminated two more senior employees.

The chief information officer who was terminated had been named in February as

the project manager to help roll out the government's marijuana plan.

I ask

the Premier: With marijuana becoming legal in a few short months, was this

individual terminated with cause or without cause?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

decision by the CEO at the NLC, Mr. Speaker, was just that, a decision of the

CEO of the NLC. I'm not exactly sure what the reasons for the dismissal were. I

was informed of the dismissal by the CEO. We have full confidence in the CEO to

run the operations of the NLC.

We do

have cannabis coming on stream, and that is a very important file for us, Mr.

Speaker, but I'm assured by her that this will not affect the rollout of the

cannabis file.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When a

minister who has publicly stated he is very concerned about spending at

agencies, boards and commissions, it takes me by surprise that he hasn't even

inquired to find out if it's with cause or without cause. The implications and

cost to government are significantly different.

I ask

the Premier: Will he commit today to hold a public competition to fill this

position or is the plan just to fill this, as you've done so many times in the

last two-and-a-half years, to fill it with a Liberal friend?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

unfortunate that sometimes deep politics enters a question in Question Period;

but, Mr. Speaker, what I can assure you here is that the CEO – we have asked for

efficiencies within our agencies, boards and commissions. We have done

restructuring of management within core government.

understand from the CEO that these positions will not be filled at the NLC. Part

of it, my understanding, is finding efficiencies at the NLC. Outside of that, if

there are any other reasons or any other causes, I cannot speak to that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the information

we have is the chief information officer is intended to be replaced.

Yesterday, while visiting Nova Scotia, federal Fisheries Minister LeBlanc

confirmed he was standing by his decision to give a surf clam quota to the Five

Nations Clam Company and he flat out has rejected calls to reverse the decision.

I ask

the Premier: What is his plan now?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we remain in close communication with not only the department but

the minister himself.

I had a

brief exchange yesterday with Minister LeBlanc where I reiterated our

expectation of a meeting and I reiterated our expectation that the decision be

rescinded. I'm looking forward to that meeting. We do know the minister has some

health issues which he's dealing with, but we do expect that meeting. I will

note for the benefit of the House, that the licence has not yet been issued.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

was, yesterday, in Nova Scotia visiting the industry and people involved with

the industry there. Last week he was questioned in Parliament about his decision

and Minister LeBlanc said he was very proud of the process. He also said that he

was convinced that the decision is good for the industry. He said it's good in

terms of benefits for indigenous communities and he said it will be good for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask

the Premier: What is your understanding of how the minister sees this or can he

explain this, that it's good for Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we disagree with the federal minister's characterization of this

particular process. We feel it was very, very flawed.

Specific

requirements were put in place through their own request for proposals process,

which clearly do not seem to be followed at all. There were placeholder elements

to the successful proposal.

As we

know, the proposal itself was led by a non-indigenous company, Premium Seafoods

out of Arichat, Cape Breton. There was one indigenous partner that was included

in the original award or the advancement of the proposal. To the best of our

knowledge, there were four placeholder positions for indigenous, including in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

categorically reject that as responsible behaviour within this process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the minister has clarified that they're offside on this decision with the

federal government. When asked for his opinion on its government's decision on

surf clam quota, the regional minister, the minister from Newfoundland and

Labrador, Minister Seamus O'Regan said that he believes opening up the surf clam

fishery to competition is a good thing.

Clearly,

no one in the federal Liberal Cabinet understands the impact of this decision on

the people right here in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not even our

own representative in the federal Cabinet.

Minister

O'Regan was in town this week. I ask the Premier: While he was here with other

visiting ministers and meeting with his MP colleagues from Newfoundland and

Labrador, was there an opportunity to meet with the minister and to express your

views on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, part of the

strategy of this government, of the Members on this side of the House, has been

to reach out to everyone and anyone who can assist our province in advancing our

interests, and that included reaching out to Minister O'Regan.

Premier

Ball and I, we actually had a conversation with our regional minister where we

did indeed voice our concerns, where we expressed our concerns about the process

itself and the ultimate decision. We've reached out to indigenous communities;

we've reached out to industry players.

I'll

note also, Mr. Speaker, concern is not being raised just in this province, and

this is very important for the House to reflect on. It is being expressed in

other provinces as well. That's the partnerships, that's the allies we're

seeking here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Minister, Grand Bank plant depends solely on processing surf clams. It doesn't

do any groundfish, scallops, shrimp or crab, just surf clams.

What

assurance can you give us that all Clearwater's remaining surf clam quota will

be processed in Grand Bank and not in the facility in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we expect Grand

Bank Seafoods to adhere to all provincial requirements and laws. As we know,

Clearwater had taken the decision some time ago, when the hon. Member was in

government, to upgrade a plant in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and to offer that

plant for the purposes of processing surf clams.

We feel

very, very strongly that we have to work together on this to ensure a better

future for Grand Bank. That's why we're spending so much energy, on this side of

the House, making sure that our voice is heard in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'll remind the minister that

the Glace Bay plant was just for the overflow at the Grand Bank plant.

In Nova

Scotia yesterday, Minister LeBlanc said he understood there would be displeasure

in this decision. He said it's not about hurt feelings. Well, I tell you, it's

about hundreds of full-time jobs that are in jeopardy on the Burin Peninsula.

Minister, what are you doing about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, if the Member

really wants to make this about commitment, the Members from this side of the

House, including the Member for Burin - Grand Bank – all the Members on this

side of the House – are very, very concerned about the situation in Grand Bank.

If the

Member really wants to make this about commitment, this decision was taken by

the federal minister on September 6. That Member did not ask any questions in

this House in October, in November or December.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BYRNE:

He did not ask any questions.

He did not approach me on this.

If the

Member really wants to make this about commitment, then I'd ask: Did the hon.

Member communicate to the federal government his own concerns? I'd suggest he

did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I wish the minister would

understand that there was a question asked on this. Now, it did happen in

September. We don't open until the House until 1st of November, but it was asked

in the last session on December 5 if you want to go back and have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

And before then, I also spoke

to the mayor of Grand Bank about the situation down there. He was very concerned

and he thought you were concerned too.

Mr.

Speaker, Clearwater stated it's pursuing legal options at a possible abuse by

the federal Minister LeBlanc. Minister LeBlanc stated yesterday that he was not

surprised and worried about that.

At one

point, Minister, you said you were going to seek a legal opinion also. Can you

give us an update on that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, what we've

gotten clarification on is the hon. Member actually acknowledges that there was

an additional plant that was built in Cape Breton for surf clams under his

watch. While the decision was rendered in September, there was no communication

by the hon. Member until the very dying days of the sitting of the House just

before Christmas on December 5. Now we ask about whether or not we're offering a

legal opinion.

Mr.

Speaker, what we are doing is we are working very, very hard for the people of

Grand Bank to solve the problem, as it stands with the minister and with the

department. Yes, I appreciate the fact that he did take an opportunity to call

the mayor of Grand Bank. The Premier and I, along with the Members of this

caucus, especially the Member for

Burin - Grand Bank, have been in communication

with the mayor of Grand Bank many, many times.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I think the minister should worry about this own job, as Minister of

Fisheries representing Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

K. PARSONS:

for the fisheries.

Minister, the winning applicant of the quota was in

Minister LeBlanc's own riding. The company that partnered with the owner is a

brother of federal MP.

Do you think this is part of the flawed process too?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR.

BYRNE:

Mr.

Speaker, the entire request for proposal process was not adhered to. When you

have a company which actually appears to be the leading driver to the proposal

itself, when the RFP process was supposed to be led by indigenous communities

and nations – yes, Premium Seafoods does appear to be the lead driver of this

particular proposal.

What we also know is that for such a valuable species,

surf clams, this has been offered now to indigenous communities for three weeks.

There's an offer but no buyers. I find that very, very strange and it does show

that not only do we find, as a government, that the process was flawed, but many

indigenous communities of Atlantic Canada and Quebec also find it flawed.

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.

We've heard that many researchers have stopped

conducting clinical trials because it's frustrating working with the Health

Research Ethics Authority, denying patients of cutting-edge new medicine and

treatments, as well as stifling the economic impact of less research spending in

the province.

Can the minister give details of clinical trial

activity in this province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's unfortunate that the way the question is framed

leads or could lead people to think this province is not open for innovation and

business, when the facts plainly speak to the opposite. We have had innovation

summits. We have had technology summits. The Health Research Ethics Authority

and its board are arm's-length authorities put in place to protect the people of

this province under conditions of research to ensure it is safe and ethical.

I cannot, nor will I, interfere with that process. They

are committed to doing it in a safe and appropriate fashion, and I would support

them in that endeavour, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You may say that you're open for business here, but

you're doing very little to enhance business here, particularly when it comes

around medical research.

What are the time frames as it relates to the duration

from submission to approval? Surely, the government must encourage a standard by

which it can be judged.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The

requirement is that the application for ethics approval be considered within 30

days. That timeline has been a challenge owing to vacancies on the Health

Research Ethics Board, which were filled as recently as last fall.

The

nature of the current problem that the Member alluded to in his previous

question is simply the complexity and inherent difficulty in working through

such a complicated proposal to the point where expert advice was sought and

brought in and both parties have gone away to examine the results of that, Mr.

Speaker. It needs to be done properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Other

jurisdictions can answer the same complex questions in two to four weeks.

Why is

it we've accepted the authority here in this province to operate so far out of

what is accepted as the political norms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

dispute the comparison with other jurisdictions. The complexity of this request

and its inherent difficulties in working through it are not within the range of

normal; hence, the Health Research Ethics Board desire to seek outside

nationally-recognized expertise. They have advised both sides of the process,

and there are meetings going ahead as we speak to deal with this issue, Mr.

Speaker. It needs to be done properly for the benefit of the people of this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sequence

Bio has now been waiting over six months for something that would take less than

four weeks in another province; waiting to invest hundreds of millions of

dollars.

Can the

minister explain why this delay is still occurring?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

absence of Hansard being that fast, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again: this

process is complicated. The timeline was met with 30 days.

There

have been challenges with recruiting for the Health Research Ethics Board, which

were temporary and transient and have been remedied. The application is being

considered. It is complicated. Outside expertise has been brought in. Both

parties have taken that expertise's advice and are now working through the

process. It has to be done properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

regulator is so badly destroying research opportunities in this province that

something must be done. The Health

Research Ethics Authority Act allows the authority to recognize Central

Ethics and other certified non-profit regulators in this country.

Why

hasn't the government ensured the regulator, that it is responsible for, is

actually fulfilling its duties?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The role

of a politician in health research ethics decisions is zero, Mr. Speaker –

absolutely zero. This is an arm's-length body for a reason.

We have

seen in the past, prior to the Health Research Ethics Authority being

established by the Opposition when they were in power – prior to that, there

were misfortunes and unfortunate occurrences of an ethical nature which will not

be repeated on my watch, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At one

point the minister mentioned efforts to improve process at the Health Research

Ethics Authority. Apparently the department hired a lean management consultant

who looked at the body and then quit.

Can the

minister confirm this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

have been a variety of approaches by the Health Research Ethics Authority. I'm

sure they would be better placed to speak to the detail of those. They have made

attempts and instituted newer policies and approaches. They have brought in

outside expertise, Mr. Speaker.

In this

particular instance, it is a complicated case. It needs to be done properly for

the benefit and safety of the people in this province. I will not interfere with

the assessment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, under recent public service negotiations agreed to with NAPE, new

provisions related to severance and no-layoff clauses were introduced.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: What's the status of these provisions with negotiations

with ongoing collective bargaining with other unions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for his question. Mr. Speaker, we have instituted with our public

sector negotiations with NAPE, which is now ratified, a no-layoff clause. There

are protections within that that ensure the clause does not roll into future

agreements and we stand by that. That's one of the factors that we've ensured as

we've moved forward.

With

regard to severance, severance payments will be paid out, Mr. Speaker, to all

public servants based on what they've earned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Precisely I'll ask the minister: What's the current status of negotiations with

those other unions outside of NAPE, which I understand collective bargaining is

continuing. What's the status of those negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, they are

ongoing. We have one current set of negotiations right now that we're

temporarily paused on with CUPE. Outside of that, they are ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The minister indicated

there's a pause ongoing with CUPE in regard to negotiations.

Could he

explain what that pause is, or are there issues with negotiations at this time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The

primary reason for the pause with CUPE at this particular point as regarding the

no lay-off clause, we are seeking assurances from CUPE, Mr. Speaker, the same as

we've sought from NAPE on the no lay-off clause, we want to ensure that the no

lay-off clause does not extend into future contracts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in previous statements the minister indicated that the severance to be

paid out under the NAPE collective agreement is approximately $250 million.

I wonder

if he has estimated what the total payout under severance will be with the

public service with those collective agreements confirmed with the other unions.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

total severance payout, including all public servants throughout our agencies,

boards and commissions at core government, bargaining, non-bargaining,

management positions is less than $600 million. Of that, Mr. Speaker, we

anticipate about 35 per cent of that will come back to government through income

taxes and through sales taxes. We are booking out the full amount but we do

anticipate that we will receive a large portion of that back in taxes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on December 5, 2016, the Minister of Natural Resources admitted that

Vale had asked for changes to the development agreement. The minister stated

this is a change to what would be the project milestones.

Minister, it's now March 2018, has Vale informed you if the start of the mining

will occur on December 31, 2019, as per the agreed to development agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to say hello to Peacock Primary who are watching us today. I thank you for

joining us.

This is

a very important question that has just been asked of me and I will, for the

sake of the House, give a little bit of background. As we all know, Vale

International has done a review of its base metals business, Mr. Speaker, and

part of that review, of course, was the Voisey's Bay Project. We were hopeful,

and still are, that they will go underground to extend that project.

The

question, of course, speaks to whether or not Vale is continuing to think about

going underground. I understand from public information they are considering

streaming cobalt, Mr. Speaker, to help fund them to go underground. We are

continuing to encourage them to do so.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly

respect the minister talking about they're thinking about doing something, but

the point here is there was an agreed-to amendment and process here agreed to,

to go underground by 2019.

August 2017, Vale announced a 60-day review of the Voisey's Bay operation. This

was six months ago. I've asked the minister several times if she has received an

update, but the status of the mine is still unknown.

Minister, what have been the findings of the 60-day review completed by Vale?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Vale

continues to consider whether or not it can go underground. Mr. Speaker. I just

advised the Member opposite, and, of course, the whole of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that Vale continues to assess that opportunity. We do know they are

considering streaming cobalt to help fund them go underground.

We're

continuing to meet with them. I've just met with them again recently to

encourage them to consider that. The impact on Vale's operations today at

Voisey's Bay are that Voisey's Bay continues. This is about going underground

for future opportunity.

We're

continuing to talk to Vale about this. They're continuing to assess it and we're

hopeful they are able to stream cobalt in order to fund it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nickel

closed yesterday at $6.06 US per pound. This is an increase since Vale announced

their 60-day review, six months ago. This increase in price certainly looks at

the business case for the underground mine and continues to improve.

Minister, what was the last update you received from Vale? When did you obtain

it? Why isn't this moving forward?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I met

with Vale this week at PDAC. We are continuing to meet with them to encourage

them to go underground at Voisey's Bay. This is important to the Nunatsiavut

Government, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, of course, to the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Vale has

indicated, as I've said, they are looking to stream cobalt. Cobalt, as a

commodity, is very much in demand these days. They're looking to stream cobalt

to help fund them go underground. They're continuing to work that end.

understand and know that there's an incredible resource underground at Voisey's

Bay. We think that Vale will note that and will move forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

government for its stated commitment to improving the status of women in this

province; however, it being International Women's Day, there are still some

outstanding issues.

Last

year on International Women's Day, I presented a private Member's motion asking

government to start the process to enact pay equity legislation. The motion

passed unanimously. The gender pay gap in Newfoundland and Labrador is still one

of the worst in Canada.

I ask

the Premier: Where is his pay equity legislation? The women of the province are

awaiting his promise.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

government values diversity in the workplace. We are an equal opportunity

employer. We ensure that throughout core government, Mr. Speaker. We brought in

a policy just a couple of weeks ago regarding harassment. We are looking at

legislation to ensure that all individuals in this province feel safe in the

workplace, safe and free of harassment.

Mr.

Speaker, 50 per cent of our core government right now is female, 50 per cent

male. Within the public service in its entirety, I believe 58 per cent are

female.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I was asking

about pay equity. Women in Newfoundland and Labrador make 69 cents for every

dollar that a man makes.

Mr.

Speaker, last fall, following the In Her Name vigil for missing and murdered

women and girls in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Provincial Action Network on

the Status of Women, and a coalition of anti-violence groups, urgently called

for a provincial task force on gender-based violence.

This

week again I spoke to many of these groups around the province and they still

urgently call for this crucial task force. Women at the minister's own Committee

on Violence Against Women and Girls also urgently called for this task force.

I ask

the Premier: Will he commit to immediately striking a task force that is so

clearly needed to comprehensively address the issue of violence against women

and girls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question from the Member opposite. I'm very happy to be able to

stand and talk about the meeting that we had back in December with the

ministerial committee regarding violence against women and girls. It's a meeting

that was represented by groups from all over this province, and in fact, by

Members from all sides of this House. It was a very good opportunity for

everybody to come together – indigenous groups, law enforcement, social advocacy

groups, and for us to have a chat about some very frank and real issues that

women face in this province.

What I

would say is that it was a very honest and a very truthful meeting. Out of that,

there were roughly 2,000 thoughts and ideas that were put forward. Just

yesterday, we announced a steering committee that are going to take this and

move forward with some of the systemic issues, but I'm also happy to announce

that we have concrete action and legislation coming forward to combat these

issues.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the women of the

province are calling for a task force because of the urgency of this problem.

Mr.

Speaker, affordable child care is a foundational piece in lifting and keeping

women out of poverty, keeping women in the workforce, improving the economy and

it is beneficial to our children. Despite some additional funding, the cost of

child care is still prohibitive in this province.

I ask

the Premier: On behalf of the working families of Newfoundland and Labrador, on

this International Women's Day, will he commit to advocating with this federal

counterparts in Ottawa for a national, universal, affordable, public, quality

child care system where no child is left behind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to

point to some of the initiatives that we have had in the last year have been

well beyond what has been done in previous years for early childhood education.

In the last budget, we had an additional $3.3 million for two things: to

increase wages for early childhood educators through the supplement program. We

also changed the threshold for families qualifying for a child care subsidy.

That was the first change in 10 years.

We have

since changed it again with $22 million that we have gotten from the federal

government. So over a three-year period, we will see some $32 million of

additional funds for early childhood education. That is a massive investment in

comparison to what was done previously, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a very quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Where is the Domestic Violence Court he promised to the people of

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety, for a quick response.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have,

within my mandate letter, a promise to take the family violence court and to

spread it all over this province, and that's something we're working on. So it

is something that's going to happen, but there are also many other positive

things that are happening including – and I'm looking forward to this. Our

Premier will be introducing Bill 1 in this House in the very near future and

that's regarding the Family Violence

Protection Act . We're going to take it and make it better.

Thank

you

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Question

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11(1), I move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, March 12.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of

my district. Mutton Bay Bridge, located in the Trepassey area, is approximately

50 years old. In 2015, an inspection identified significant structural issues

with both the substructure and superstructure portions of the bridge. This

inspection urgently recommended full replacement or significant maintenance and

repair.

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

address this most serious issue that impacts the lives and safety of the

travelling public and make it a priority for the upcoming construction season.

Mr.

Speaker, I have, on occasion, presented similar petitions here in the House in

regard to this piece of infrastructure on Route 10 before the entrance to

Trepassey. Just to view it driving over causes concerns to many of the

travelling public related to the rails. The concrete rails off the structure

itself looks in disrepair. As I said, the 2015 report indicated immediate rehab

to that piece of infrastructure.

Last

fall, I do believe, when the Department of TW asked for feedback on their

ongoing five-year Roads Plan, I did write the minister and indicated this was of

concern to the region. I asked that an assessment be done and immediate repairs

be undertaken for this piece of infrastructure.

When the

new roads program was announced a little while ago, there was no reference to

it. I did ask the department again: Was there an error here? This was missed.

They checked into it.

I did

receive a letter just recently that this is not part of the roads program, which

is of grave concern to the region and the people in the area. As I said, it has

been indicated in 2015 that repair needed to be done. It's certainly unfortunate

that this wasn't recognized in the roads program.

One of

the challenges with that is there's no rating with it. In that roads program is

the infrastructure that's going to be done, but it's not rated with other work

that's not being done to see what truly is the most significant piece of

infrastructure in regard to rating that needs to be done. That's unfortunate.

I do

call on the minister and government to revisit this, get immediate maintenance

done on it and look at replacing this bridge in the upcoming construction

season.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, last year this government, for

the first time, I think, in the history of governments, brought in a five-year

Roads Plan with rolling numbers. Back in early February we released this year's

plan, which 100 per cent of the work we're going to do this year and 75 per cent

we're going to do next year.

Mr.

Speaker, it's interesting because in the 2014 Auditor General's report it was

clearly pointed out that from 2003 to 2014 bridge rehabilitation or any projects

in this province were never ranked, they were done in a political nature. One of

the things with our new ranking system is we are able now to go out and look at

– and without a doubt we have major bridge issues in this province. Around 50

per cent of our bridges now are over 50 years old. The reality is, if we could

fix every one of the bridge problems that we have in the deficit of bridge

infrastructure in this province today, it would cost half a billion dollars.

The

bridge issues we're facing today were something that should have been addressed

much stronger when oil was at $150 a barrel. Mr. Speaker, we realize the

significant safety issues around bridges, our staff constantly are monitoring

bridges and it's a very important topic for us and I do assure the hon. Member

that bridges like the one he's referring to are certainly on our radar.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to present this petition on behalf of the residents of my district.

In our

province, there are numerous encounters between bicycles and motor vehicles.

Some of these have been fatal. Bicycles are already protected on our roadways,

and are considered to have the same rights as motor vehicles according to the

Highway Traffic Act . However, there is

no clear definition of how a car should approach someone riding their bike. A

one-metre law would erase any confusion. This law would prohibit drivers from

passing anyone travelling on their bicycle in the same direction, unless there

is at least one metre of open space between the vehicle and the bicycle.

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

We, the

undersigned, urge the House of Assembly to urge the government to help save

lives of vulnerable bicyclists using the roadways in our province and implement

a one-metre law in our province.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a law that's already in existence in many jurisdictions across

our country such as Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island, as well as 27 states in the United States and in many other

countries as well.

One of

the big benefactors of a bicycle, of course, is it encourages people to get out

in our province and exercise, and it has a great, positive environmental effect

as well. Another thing that we would also like to point out is bicycling is a

great way to tour our province, so we would like our tourists to feel much safer

if they knew this law was in existence.

This is

an excellent and clear definition with the one-metre law as to how somebody

could approach a bicycle and safely pass them.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL for a response.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for Mount Pearl North for bringing that to the House of Assembly. I'd

just like to inform him that we're actively working on the one-metre law.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry provides a vital transportation link; and

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry is only eight minutes from port at any given time; and

WHEREAS

government's recent implementation policy related to mandatory existing of

vehicles will put people at higher risk of injury than possibly of having to

evacuate the vehicle in case of an emergency; and

WHEREAS

Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exist their vehicles

during this commute;

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

of Assembly to urge government to conduct a full and thorough risk assessment to

clearly identify all risks and liabilities associated with such a policy

decision, after which will publicly release any and all results from the details

of review.

And in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I spoke to this yesterday and numerous times. No doubt, the minister

will respond as he did yesterday but I need to clarify a few things. This is not

about anybody saying that we're in favour of safety; it's the opposite. We're

talking about realistically doing due diligence, and not everything fits in a

cookie-cutter process here. There are large and small vessels. There are ones

that spend much longer periods of time at sea that are more vulnerable.

In this

case, what we're talking about, we have a vulnerable sector. We're not saying

everybody stays in their vehicles. Those who have serious medical issues that

have been diagnosed and doctors have already given notes – doctors don't give

notes flippantly, particularly specialists and surgeons when they say this

client or this patient must have the following treatments or supports to be able

to ensure that the procedures they had are in the best interests of them being

able to recover, or other people who are facing certain medical challenges.

We have

an ambulance that gets on the ferry. I'm just trying to bring people up – and

I'll do this for the next few weeks or so. An ambulance gets on, the ambulance

attendants can stay in and the person in the back of that may have gone over for

an X-ray. We have somebody who had surgery on a leg, had pins put in it, but

there's no ambulance available – because keeping in mind we have limited

abilities here with red alerts in the St. John's area for an ambulance to be

deployed to go to Bell Island, or an ambulance from Bell Island to be sent to

St. John's to pick up there.

In due

diligence, that person, once they're secure in their van or the car with an

attendant, could very easily then stay in that vehicle. If indeed an evacuation

had to take place, we're talking 10 to 12 steps to get upstairs. In most cases

with the vessels here, we don't have the capacity in the lounges to be able to

attend to their needs, keeping in mind in most cases the elevator takes them to

a lounge which they have to walk, or be moved a further distance to get to the

muster station.

So when

you talk about safety and use that as a big umbrella thing, you really have to

look at the safety of the individual who is being transported here. We're

talking about not the general public, not the David Brazils or anybody else of

the world who can get up and get to the muster station, the small percentage who

are at more risk by having to try to get up there in an environment that is not

conducive for their well-being. That has a real, detrimental effect on them.

There

are horror stories that I will share with this House over the next number of

weeks about how this new policy does not work in the best interest of the

people, particularly those with medical issues.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition again.

Mr.

Speaker, I will reiterate some of the points I stated yesterday with reference

to – this policy is consistent with all interprovincial ferries as to what you

would find on the Fogo Island run, the Long Island run, any of the ferries in

the province that have a roll-on, roll-off service.

What I

can assure the hon. Member is the independent process is – we're doing the RFP

process now and we expect the results of this in the next few weeks. One of the

things this independent third party assessment will look at are the concerns

that the Member just raised with regard to medical and other issues.

I can

assure the hon. Member opposite that when we do this assessment there will be

vessel visits, interviews with passengers and staff. We will also consult with

Transport Canada, our classification societies and inclusionNL, Mr. Speaker. So

it's important to us, safety is important, but we'll await the results of the

independent assessment.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The Deputy Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Order 3, third

reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend

The Public Inquiries Act, 2006, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I was

happy to participate in the debate on Bill 35 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

–

An Act to Amend the Legal

Aid Act.

I would

like to stress once again my acknowledgement of the incredibly wonderful work,

the excellent work done by our Legal Aid lawyers across the province on behalf

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would

also, Mr. Speaker, like to stress once again that it was only last July that the

provincial director of Legal Aid stated emphatically, absolutely emphatically in

the media about the lack of resources in terms of the increase in cases that are

coming to the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid system, and he is having to

turn away cases that they would normally accept but couldn't because of the high

volume of people across the province looking for help through Legal Aid.

So we

have people who cannot afford coverage in the private bar who will go to Legal

Aid to ensure they have justice, that they are covered by the Legal Aid –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

CLERK (Barnes):

(Inaudible) on the Order

Paper.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. ROGERS:

This is 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We have

folks in Newfoundland and Labrador who should be eligible for legal aid

assistance; however, because of the increased volume and the work and the cases

coming to Legal Aid for assistance, some people now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, should I

continue or should I wait? Are we –?

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) public inquiries

act.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I may have to draw relevance.

MS. ROGERS:

Wrong bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

MS. ROGERS:

Right Chamber, wrong bill.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

All right, we're good?

Is the

House ready for the question?

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition regarding third reading of Bill 35.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Maybe if

a take a few moments to make some comments, maybe my hon. colleague might – I

think she probably does want to speak to Bill 35, but now she'll get a couple of

minutes to reorganize her thoughts. It's Thursday afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 35

is a bill to amend the Public Inquiries

Act . There has been a fair bit of discussion in second reading and there was

also discussion in Committee as well.

Committee I asked the minister a number of questions and it very quickly became

a discussion beyond what is actually contained in the act. We talked about the

mechanics of what's going to take place and how it's going to function after

it's implemented, and it pertains to privilege.

Just so

we're all on the same page, Mr. Speaker, the Explanatory Notes says the “B ill

would amend the Public Inquiries Act, 2006 to confirm that immunity or

privilege is not waived where the Crown or a person designated by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council discloses information to a commission or

inquiry.”

The bill adds three sections. It's says, “ Where

the Crown or a person designated … discloses to a commission or inquiry, either

voluntarily or in response to a request or summons,

any information over which immunity

or privilege, including solicitor-client privilege, is asserted, the immunity or

privilege is not waived or defeated for any purpose by the disclosure.”

Section

(2) goes on to say, the “ commission

or inquiry determines that it is necessary to disclose information over which

the Crown or a person designated under subsection (3)” – which I just read –

“asserts immunity or privilege, including solicitor-client privilege, the

immunity or privilege is not waived or defeated ….”

the question became – and I

read this several times and did a fair bit of consulting with people in the

legal community and people who have knowledge on public inquiries and experience

with public inquiries. I said: What does this mean to you? What does this bill

actually do?

confirms that privilege. If it's Cabinet privilege, if it's solicitor-client

privilege, if there's some sort of privilege because a contractor, in the case

of the upcoming inquiry, has claimed some type of privilege, then what this says

is that it's not waived by giving it to the Commission. If the Commission wants

to use it, it's still not waived. The default returns to the Crown, to the

government, or the client to waive that privilege. The minister clarified that

it's the client who holds privilege and it's up to the client if they want to

waive privilege or not.

Mr.

Speaker, in discussing with the minister how that's going to take place, we

pointed out some comparisons. For example, I said to the minister under the

Access to Information and the Protection

of Privacy Act if a citizen of the province files an access to information

request, say, from a government department, and then the government responds as

required under access to information, but doesn't provide information, claims

privilege exists or some other reason for not providing it, then the applicant

can go to an independent third party and ask that it be reviewed. The office of

the Privacy Commissioner can actually ask for the documents, review the

documents and determine if government had acted appropriately or not.

What we

have in this bill is different from that type of independent process. What will

happen as a result of this bill is that deciding if they're going to release

privilege or not will fall back strictly to the government. One of the issues we

raised was about the ability – I'm not suggesting government is going to do

this, it's going to be in legislation, but a government could decide to treat

different documents differently depending on their origin or on the impact of

disclosure of those documents.

When I

asked the minister what the process will be, he said there will be a

determination later on what will be waived and what will not. When I asked him

what the process will be, he said: I can't say what process will be followed.

That was his words as I made note of them. During debate he said: I can't say

what process will be followed. Mr. Speaker, that's important for us to

understand exactly what the impact and effect of the bill will be. That's why we

asked a considerable amount of questions on it during Committee.

That

leaves us with a problem because as legislators we have a responsibility to vote

on all bills. We either vote for it, we vote against it and during the process

of debate here in this House, we also have an option to present or propose

amendments. We didn't feel it was appropriate to bring forward an amendment. We

didn't clearly understand exactly the outcomes and how much detail the

government knew or didn't know until we got to Committee and was able to engage

in a back and forth, as happens in the Committee process, with the minister. It

wasn't until we got later in that process that we actually learned that the

minister can't say, doesn't know what the process will be to be followed. So

that creates a problem because it doesn't allow for a third-party, independent

process.

If the

minister was to say we're going to make sure that the commissioner – the

commissioner is a highly respected, experienced lawyer and judge in this

province. We put a tremendous amount respect and trust in him, as we should. If

it was up to him to say well, you know a lot about solicitor-client privilege

and the laws surrounding it, if it was to be left to the commissioner to make

the determination, it would give us a higher level of comfort.

If it

was a process put in place whereby someone, a third party, for example the

Privacy Commissioner who is also a lawyer, well-respected lawyer in this

province and knowledgeable on matters of privilege and access to information and

protection of privacy and so on, maybe if we left it as is in the ATIPP

legislation, Access to Information and

Protect of Privacy Act that exists today, if that kind of process was added

to this, that would give us a level of comfort as well.

I did

attend the briefing. We actually had two briefings where Members of the

Opposition staff were in place. We requested a second briefing because we still

weren't clear of the potential implications of this bill. We had further

discussion and understanding. My understanding from those briefings is that the

government, while the intention is not for it to happen, they could essentially

cherry-pick aspects of a privileged document to waive privilege on but not the

entire document.

They

could look at a document from 2006 and evaluate that in a way that's

inconsistent with a document from 2017, as an example, but that's not the

intention of this and I respect that's not the intention of it. The thing is

there are no safeguards to judge that process, to evaluate that process on how

that should take place.

that's where we had some problems with this. I've expressed my appreciation and

thanks during debate a number of times now to staff and the minister for

allowing the briefings that took place. I appreciate the minister's efforts to

get up and provide answers to questions; even though they were answers he got up

and he couldn't say what the process was, which was a fundamental question for

us.

believe the bill, in the Committee phase of the bill, in discussion that took

place, it's clear that the bill is about waiving privilege which has an

implication to access to information and protection of privacy. Under the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act , it has a

stipulation under

section 112 where a minister and a department is supposed to

consult with the Privacy Commissioner.

The

minister has defended that strongly and doesn't accept our point of view on

that. Fair enough, that he doesn't, but I also refer to the most recent annual

report by the Privacy Commissioner where he acknowledges that departments can't

always anticipate the potential for impacts and that he encouraged them in his

annual report to say consult with me anyway.

I spoke

to the Privacy commissioner and understood that he very quickly could determine

if there was or was not a reason for the Privacy Commissioner to look at it more

in-depth. He could sometimes figure that out very, very quickly, but he

encouraged anyway that government should reach out. The Privacy Commissioner did

respond, his office did respond to us and confirm that they hadn't been

consulted on this particular act. We just felt that was something the government

could do, to consult with the Privacy Commissioner, especially when it's laid

out in the act. We would assert that it says that it's required to be done.

Mr.

Speaker, there were a number of issues on that. Again, that was a concern for

us. We've outlined those in Committee. I wanted to take the opportunity in third

reading to do that again and I expect that some colleagues may express some of

their views as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to take a moment but I do want to piggyback on the comments made by the

Leader of the Official Opposition. I asked some questions in Committee as well

and I had some concerns. The minister, there were some things he couldn't

answer. He did indicate to me that I would get the answers before we got into

third reading. As a matter of fact yesterday he said you should receive an email

from my department this afternoon. I never did get an email. I never did get any

answers to the questions that I had as well, so I just want to reiterate those

concerns.

I guess,

similar to what the Leader of the Official Opposition said – and I can

understand where he is coming from, and he makes some valid points I believe. My

concerns are perhaps less about the department because the departments are

guided by the minister. Given the fact that Muskrat Falls was sanctioned and so

on by the previous administration, given the comment from the minister in

discussion where he was saying: Oh, you have no worries; we're going to put all

the information out there – and he said it in a tone as if to say: Don't worry,

we're not covering up anything because we want to get it all out there,

particularly if you were the guys who sanctioned the project.

I have

less concern about information not coming from there, as I do from Nalcor. I

guess the points that the minister just made around the release of information

and when privilege is going to be claimed and so on, I have the same concerns

but my concerns are even more so when it comes to Nalcor. Who's going to be

saying to Nalcor we want to make sure you release all the information?

One

could argue we have a new CEO and we have a new board but, then again, this new

CEO and new board are the people that would not release the information on

embedded contractors, even though the Premier said it didn't pass his smell

test. Even though the Privacy Commissioner, when he looked at that issue, from

what I could read in his decision he basically said that he could see nothing

wrong with releasing the information on the embedded contractors. If the

embedded contractors had been employed by the Department of Natural Resources,

under ATIPPA he would say: Yes, go ahead, release it; there's no harm. Because

of the Energy Corporation Act , which

is an issue in itself, the CEO could basically say: No b'y, we're not releasing

any of it. Even though I would suggest there was no harm in releasing it. That's

the new CEO.

The new

CEO and the new board said we're not releasing information. Not the old board,

not the old CEO, the new one. If he's not releasing information, such as the

information on the embedded contractors, stuff that the Privacy Commissioner

seemed to have no problem with, stuff the Premier of the province had no problem

with, well then, how can we have assurances that when we get to the real good

stuff potentially and controversial stuff and everything else – how can we have

confidence that the CEO and board of Nalcor are going to take the same approach

as the Minister of Justice, as he's going to take and say: Let it all go. We

want to get it all out there.

Will

Nalcor have that same attitude about we want to get it all out there? Will they?

I don't know. I'm less confident that they're going to want to do it as I am for

the minister when he says he wants to do it. Under this process, as the Member

for the Official Opposition has said, it's going to be totally up to Nalcor.

Nalcor could cherry-pick and there's nothing there to say that the commissioner

has any say in it. There's no Privacy Commissioner involved here, nothing. They

could say, no, we're claiming privilege, and there's no independent party.

Nalcor

can say here are all the files, but when they get the files and the Commissioner

says I want this, this, this and this, Nalcor can say, no, you can't have this

piece. The same as the Department of Justice (inaudible) say, no, you can't have

this piece, that's detrimental to the overall good of the province. Well, Nalcor

can say the same thing and there's nobody to adjudicate that decision.

The

Commissioner can't say: no, b'y, that's foolishness, there's no reason why this

can't be part of the inquiry. They can say: no, privilege, and there's no

independent person or body to say no, b'y, that's ridiculous, there's no

privilege here, there's no harm in releasing this. That's a concern.

Now, I'm

not saying that's going to happen; I have no idea what's going to happen. I

suppose the problem is we all have to take it on blind faith that everybody is

going to want to release everything possible and there's going to be no

cherry-picking and it's all going to be done properly. We have to take it on

faith that that's going to happen. I guess that's the concern the Official

Opposition has, and I would share that concern.

At the

end of the day, I do understand the principle of what the Minister of Justice is

saying in this bill. I totally get that, that we can't just simply say take all

the files and waive all the privilege and then there's a piece of information in

there that has nothing to do with the inquiry but it's detrimental to the

province. We want to be able to protect that. I understand that, it makes total

sense. I get it, but the piece about stuff that is related and really shouldn't

be considered privilege, there's nobody to adjudicate those grey areas; nobody

adjudicates the grey areas.

We have

to take it for granted that the ministers are not going to claim privilege.

They're going to let everything go through as much as possible and only claim

privilege when it's absolutely detrimental and not related. I have confidence,

as I said, that they will do that, but we also have to have faith that Nalcor is

going to do the exact same thing, and there are no guarantees. There's no

process in place to ensure that's going to happen. At least not one that the

minister could tell us about, because he was asked about it and he said he

didn't know.

I will

be voting, as I said, for this because we need to get this inquiry moving. We

need to get this done. I understand and I agree in principle what the bill is

all about, but I do want to reiterate the point that I made in Committee, that

the Leader of the Official Opposition and other Members made, that there are

still potentials – not saying it's going to happen but potentials there, there

are little loopholes there and potential – that certain pieces of information

that probably should have come out, may not come out. That's a concern for me

but, as I said, I will be voting for the bill.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I will

endeavour to speak to the appropriate bill this time.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much.

Although

I was getting going there on the Legal Aid

Act , but since that's not the act we are debating right now – in fact, we

are debating Bill 35,

An Act to Amend the Public Inquiries Act, 2006.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it was a very good debate that we did have on this act. I

believe more of us now in the House, as a result of that debate, really

understand what government was trying to achieve in this act in order to help

the Commissioner, Justice Richard LeBlanc and his team, to be able to do the

best work that they possibly can for the people of the province without

compromising any of our very foundational pieces; for instance, solicitor-client

privilege that part of our justice system is based on. I appreciate that.

The one

issue I did want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that I find it unfortunate. Although

the minister a number of times said he was not required by law to take his bill

to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, I understand that.

There probably would have been, perhaps, some basis with

section 112 of the

ATIPPA; however, it's not absolutely definitive.

I do

want to register that I think it's unfortunate that because of the serious

nature of this bill and because of the very serious nature of the inquiry on

Muskrat Falls, which people all over the province will be watching closely –

because of the environment in which we find ourselves, as I said in debate the

other day, the zeitgeist in which we find ourselves, because of the suspicion

that lays over the whole process of Muskrat Falls which has then spilled over to

many people's dissatisfaction with government and an increasing distrust,

mistrust in government and how decisions are made; that whole area of perceived,

rightfully or wrongfully, that sense of suspicion, lack of transparency and lack

of accountability – I do think it would have been wise for government, although

they are not specifically legislated to have brought this piece of legislation

to the Privacy Commissioner, I do believe it would have been a good faith

gesture to have formally presented it to the Commissioner to ask him and his

team to apply their particular expertise to this bill.

That's

basically what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. Again, not absolutely required by

law, but I do believe in this current environment and when Muskrat Falls really

is also about accountability, transparency, the inquiry, it's about transparency

and accountability and trying to re-establish the people's confidence in

government, in our democratic process, I think it would have been a wise thing

to do.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just take a few moments to address the bill we're on right now, which is the

bill,

An Act to Amend the Public Inquiries Act.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill was put before the House, and you've heard my hon. colleagues

in this House talk about the seriousness of this bill. This bill was brought

forward at the request of the commissioners who are commencing the work around

the public inquiry around Muskrat Falls. They wanted to ensure their work had

progressed as expeditiously as possible. They've asked for this amendment, which

is, by the way, supported by the Newfoundland and Labrador's Privacy

Commissioner, who actually agrees that it's appropriate for the Muskrat Falls

Inquiry to be exempt from the freedom of information act. He thought that was

appropriate. It's appropriate in two other provinces concerning inquiries. I

think it's BC and Ontario; they have this type of law as well, Mr. Speaker.

This

would allow the public inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project to progress

efficiently and effectively. It will ensure that a maximum amount of

information, especially information around solicitor-client privilege is

provided. It's exceptionally important, Mr. Speaker, that the process for the

inquiry is allowed to move forward.

memory serves, I believe the Privacy Commissioner did indicate that this is

really a temporary measure, Mr. Speaker, because the inquiry records will be

subject to access to information following its conclusion.

I'm

going to say that again, Mr. Speaker. Following the conclusion of the inquiry,

all of this information is subject to the access to information law. That's what

we understand, Mr. Speaker. That's what's been made public even by the Privacy

Commissioner himself.

I will

take my seat to allow the process to continue.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

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.'

This

motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Inquires Act, 2006. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Inquires Act, 2006,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from Orders of the Day, 2(

a) resolution and Bill 36 respecting the granting of

Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health of Community Service, that the House do

resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the resolution and Bill 36

respecting the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of

Whole to consider the said bill.

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, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

considering the related resolution and Bill 36.

Resolution

“That it

is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty

for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year

ending March 31, 2019 the sum of $2,806,552,200.”

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

indeed a pleased to get up again here today and represent the beautiful District

of Cape St. Francis; not only the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis but the

beautiful people who live in it.

Mr.

Chair, it's coming on 10 years now. It's been a long while here in the House of

Assembly and I've seen a lot of changes, seen a lot of different faces.

Actually, I was thinking this morning, I think it's five Premiers in only 10

years. To the new people who are here in the House of Assembly, there are

changes happening here all the time; five Premiers in 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

Four by us, there's no doubt,

but there are a lot of changes. Do you know what? A day in politics is like a

life. It's a statement that people make all the time about politics.

Do you

know something? I'm very proud of the 10 years that I've been here. I'm very

proud and I'm very happy that the people in my district have given me the

support to be able to be here and give me the encouragement and stuff like that.

The job

we do sometimes – I laugh, people will always make this comment, and I'm sure

every Member in this House of Assembly will agree with me. Once the House opens,

you'll run into one of your constituents, they'll say: You're finally going to

work. It starts on Monday. Your House opens Monday, so you go back to work now

Monday, do you? I find it funny.

For the

people out listening to this today, I can assure you that not only the Members

on this side here, but everybody, we work a lot of hours and do lot of stuff. I

know everybody has the right mindset and have the concerns of their constituents

in their hearts. While we will argue and disagree sometimes, I think it's

important that we all respect each other and respect the job that people are

doing. Differences of opinions are what happen every day. It happens in our

families. It happens at home. It happens on the playground. It happens on the

ice. It'll happen everywhere. I know that in particular on the ice there, Mr.

Chair. It happened a good few times to me that a lot of people didn't agree with

what I was doing.

For the

people at home, just to let you know, this is an opportunity that every MHA has,

to get on their feet and – basically, this is a money bill. It's called Interim

Supply. Government needs to pass this bill because there will be a time between

when the year ends and when the actually budget comes in that government needs

money to pay the bills. So we need to make sure that this bill gets passed.

It's an

amount of money that will be passed and will be put back into the Treasury so

that everybody's salary is paid and all our public servants are paid. There will

be bills out there that, I guess, government – whether it's the light bill or

other bills – will have to pay. So Interim Supply gives you the time frame to

make sure that the money is there for the bills as part of a budget.

Now,

this is also a part of the total budget that we will use for 2018 to 2019 next

year. So that's the reason why we need to do Interim Supply.

I'm

going to just go back, and like I said first when I started, I've been here for

almost 10 years. There are a lot of things that are after being done in my

district. I'm going to talk about my district. I'm very fortunate that I do live

– and I really say this – close St. John's. My district is not something like

what you live in, Mr. Chair, where the district is vast. It takes you two or

three hours to get from end to the other end.

district is 25 kilometres long. I live right in the middle of it. I can go one

way, I can go to Pouch Cove and Bauline –

AN HON. MEMBER:

You're lucky.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I am very lucky.

I can go

to Torbay and Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, so I'm very fortunate. I really

do appreciate – but I also say to some of the Members that I probably attend a

lot more stuff because – no fault to any Member who is living in rural

Newfoundland, I don't know how you do it sometimes. I get to go to council

meetings on Monday night. I go to recreational meetings on Wednesday night. I go

down to the Jack Byrne Arena on another night and stuff like that. So it's

pretty busy, what I've been doing, but I've enjoyed every bit of it. I have to

say that.

I'm just

going to mention a few things that were done in my district because it's always

a comment, on both sides, how government spends its money. I know in the '80s

and '90s we always talk about a deficit. I think in the years of the '80s and

'90s and early 2000s, the deficit was more or less an infrastructure deficit.

When I look back and see what was done in my area, I'm going to start off with a

community in my district: Bauline.

When I

first got elected, I went down to a meeting in Bauline and we sat in the United

Church, in the pews, while they had a public meeting because there was nowhere

in the community to have that meeting. Also, the town council office was a small

apartment, was just a rental. It was in the kitchen of this small apartment

where the kitchen table was more or less the council chambers.

Bauline today, they have an absolutely beautiful community centre. The community

centre is booked solid. I talked to a guy yesterday and he said every weekend

this coming summer there's a wedding. It's huge for the community. I was down

just a couple of weeks ago to Bic & The Ballpoints. They played down there. What

a time it was. Everybody was out from the community. There were people there in

their late eighties to their early twenties. It was a real community spirit

thing.

believe that is such a great investment in our communities, being able to bring

people together. This was an investment that we made as a government. This is

where we spent some money in Bauline. In Bauline also we did some work down

there on the roads. Recreation – they never had a playground in Bauline and now

they have a small one. I think one of the local companies – I'm not sure which

one it is, so I'm not going to name it – gave a huge donation, plus we had

$15,000 grant and now they have a nice playground in that community. That's just

one community.

The next

community I'm going to talk about is in Pouch Cove. There were a lot of

different issues in Pouch Cove. I mean not everything can get done at once and

there are still issues down there with the water. And I'm going to thank the

government across the way because Pouch Cove right now in the next couple of

weeks, I think the tractors and that are on the way for a new water treatment

and what it is, it's going to a filtration system that they're going to be able

to put in the front of their plant. I don't know if anybody remembers some of

the things they saw in the news with the dirty water and all that.

It's a

huge investment by government, but there was a lot of preliminary stuff that was

done by our government to get all the engineering and all that. It was a huge

investment. It's almost $4 million, but it will bring clean, safe, drinking

water to that community. The community is about 2,100 people, so it's very

important to everyone in that community – great investment.

They had

a problem down there with a lift station. I remember the problem was for years.

We went down one day and had a look at it. The Department of Municipal Affairs,

I really have to give them credit on this. The guy went down and said: Kevin, we

got to put that in. They put it in as a priority in my district and we ended up

getting that done. It was like $300,000 just to get that fixed alone.

They had

upgrades in their recreation. They got a nice ball field down there now. There

are some really good upgrades. There's a women's league down there. There's a

senior men's league. I get the chance to go down every now and then hit the ball

– not very far like I used to be able to one time, but I get on base a few times

down there. It's a great place to play a game of ball. One time, I could get it

out over the fence. Now if I get it out over the infield, I'm very, very happy.

Anyway,

it's a good investment. Right now there's a kid's program. I know I listened to

the Health Minister and we talk about health care in our province, I think the

more active that our people are, the healthier our people will be. All these are

great investments in making sure that people are healthy and healthier.

I'm

going to move on now to the Town of Flatrock. In my community in Flatrock, we

had an old school down there that was going to be torn down. The former mayor

and real good friend of mine, Kevin Butt who has passed on since then and we

were great friends, two of us – when I was running for mayor of Flatrock, I went

to his house and said the only way I'm going to run is if you run, and he

decided to run. Then when I became an MHA, he had to move on for mayor and he

wasn't in for that at all. Anyway, he did a great job and he did a lot of work

on our new community centre that we have down there now. It's absolutely

beautiful that everybody comes in. Again, it's booked solid. There are young

people. There are karate classes down there. There's a 50-plus club down there.

There are exercise classes during the daytime for our seniors. There are all

kinds of different things, and that's a good investment. Those are all good

investments.

Mr.

Chair, while I really want to stay positive on all the stuff that's being done,

and I'm going to get up again a couple of more times because I have a couple

more communities to go through, and I want to talk about the investments that

were made because when these investments were made, I wasn't drunk. I wasn't

drunk.

AN HON. MEMBER:

No?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, I wasn't. I wasn't a

drunken sailor like what was said beforehand: You're a drunken sailor. I believe

that these investments are huge for our people. I believe that our province had

a deficit but the deficit was more on infrastructure. I'm going to talk again,

when I get a chance to get up, about other investments that were done in

schools, in fire protection. I can talk about the Jack Byrne Arena, and I'm

going to the bypass road in Torbay. These are all good investments that were

made by sober people.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

certainly don't think that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis was drunk when

he made any of those investments. That's not what they're referring to. He was

very nice today actually, but I have to go back to yesterday when the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune was up with the rhetoric that was spewing. I mean, I

got up here today and tried to change the dial because there are so many good

things happening in this province. There are so many good things happening in

this province and we have to stop the rhetoric, stop believing the doom and

gloom because we do have a bright future in Newfoundland and Labrador and,

hopefully, today I will tell you some of the reasons why.

Before I get into what I want to talk about,

specifically, I want to say yesterday – or today actually, was the end of the

race: Cain's Quest. The longest snowmobile race in the world and it was put off

by the people of Labrador West and the people of Labrador.

What we saw yesterday with Team 22, Team 00 and Team 88

crossing the finish line was the accumulation of so much hard work by the

organizing committee to make this race possible and to attract international,

national teams and people from around the province. Certainly, I want to

specifically point out the participation of the teams from Labrador, especially

the North Coast of Labrador, the Innu, the people from Southern Labrador that

partook in this event. Mr. Chair, it's a sign that

things – it's one of the good

things that is happening in this province.

MR. BROWNE:

It's growing.

MR. LETTO:

And it's growing.

Mr.

Chair, I want to talk about mining in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you talk

about a bright spot in this province, Mr. Chair, you are part of that just as

much as I am, and a lot of us in this province are, it's a bright spot. It's a

great future in mining.

Myself

and the minister just attended the PDAC Conference in Toronto where we had a

booth there. At our booth, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, were

many prospectors showing off their finds. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, as a result

of this conference this past week there are prospectors in this province who

have auctioned off some very valuable projects that will develop into future

mines.

I just

want to point out, when you talk about mining, what we have to offer in this

province. IOC is no doubt the largest mining company in the province, which is

why Labrador West is the iron ore capital of the world, of Canada for sure.

While we're going through a little bump in the road with IOC and its workers –

and I'm confident the workforce and the company will reach an agreement in the

next couple of weeks, hopefully, that will see that operation continue the good

work it's doing.

Wabush

Mines; now when you talk about doom and gloom in this province, nobody took a

hit in 2014 like the people did in Wabush. They took a serious, serious hit with

the shutdown of Wabush Mines and the reduction in their pensions. They took a

serious hit, Mr. Chair, but I tell you things are looking much brighter for

Wabush Mines with the core resources on board. They're going through the process

right now, their permitting is in place and they're raising capital on the

market to be able to restart Wabush Mines and to put 250, 300 people back to

work. So if that's not a bright spot, I don't know what is.

We have

Alderon with the Kami Project, it's not a dead issue by any stretch of the

imagination. We are looking to see that, hopefully, be rebooted in the very near

future.

The

minister today talked about Vale. Yes, there are concerns, no doubt about it,

but we are confident and we are hopeful that Vale will find a way to be able to

proceed with their underground development which will mean many, many jobs for

the province, and of course will help in the Long Harbour situation as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Search Minerals, a company

that very few people have heard about but in my friend, the Member for

Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, it's in her district. They are now going through

an environmental assessment process for Search Minerals to develop rare earth,

which is today in big demand because of the evolution of electric cars and all

the other technology. It's a very valuable mineral that will be in demand, and

we are confident that's going to go.

Now, Mr. Chair, as you know in your district, Anaconda,

a very successful company that are looking to expand. Rambler Mines are very,

very prosperous as well. They're seeing some good years in their production. You

know how valuable gold is to the world.

There are many more prospects, by the way, in this

province for gold. We met with some of them at PDAC. Marathon Gold has a very,

very good possibility of developing into a mine, which are showing great results

in their exploratory work. When you look at that, there are all kinds of

opportunities. Of course, I can't forget the Burin Peninsula and the

reactivation of St. Lawrence and the fluorspar mine.

Mr. Chair, mining I tell you is a very, very important

part of our future, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, it's for Canada.

That's why this past week our minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, was

part of an agreement with the federal minister, Minister Carr, to proceed with a

minerals and metals strategy and process that will see a program developed where

we put in place guidelines to develop the mining industry right across this

country because it's so an important part of our future.

Mr. Chair, when you look at things in this province,

and we hear it from the other side over and over again that we're on the edge of

the cliff; we're going to fall over. The sky is falling –

MR.

BROWNE:

Doom and gloom.

MR.

LETTO:

Doom and gloom, nothing is going right.

Mr. Chair, as long as we continue to say that, as long

as people from Toronto or whatever get on television with their green glasses

and their funny suits on and tell us how bad we are and how bad we're doing, as

long as we allow people to do that, people will start

believing it.

It's our

prerogative and it's our duty in this House of Assembly, no matter what side of

the House we're on, is to stop the rhetoric, is to be able to tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador there is a future, and I strongly believe there is.

There are many more sectors besides mining that are very important for the

future and very bright.

I'm

talking about agriculture, aquaculture, innovation. Look at the awards that

people are winning across this province, around this province at Memorial

University and the Marine Institute for their development of innovation. We see

innovation as a very important part of our future.

MR. BROWNE:

Technology.

MR. LETTO:

Technology; and we cannot

forget the oil and gas sector. It's all a part of our future, but it's not

something we can totally rely on, because there are other industries.

That's

why we as a government are developing the technology industry, the agriculture

industry, the aquaculture industry because we know we cannot put all our

laurels, all our eggs in one basket as people have done in the past. We cannot

go out and make all that money and spend, spend, spend, which was done in the

last 12, 14 years, which has gotten us in the mess we're in today. We continue

to say it because it's right.

We have

turned a corner, Mr. Chair. It's time for us on both sides of the House to start

believing that and to start telling the people in the province that we are

behind them and we're here to support them. We're here to lead them in the

development of important industries, no matter what they are, suppose they are

mining, the oil and gas, innovation or whatever, agriculture, aquaculture,

technology, forestry. We have so much potential, Mr. Chair. We have so much

potential.

MR. BROWNE:

And the fishery.

MR. LETTO:

We cannot forget the fishery,

of course. We cannot forget the fishery.

We have

so much potential in this province to ensure our sustainability for the future;

yet, we have people day after day trying to drag us down, trying to drag our

people down, but it's time, Mr. Chair, that we stopped this and started talking

about the future and be positive.

CHAIR:

Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look

forward to having an opportunity to say a few words. The first thing I want to

say is when I spoke to the last bill I talked about the fact that the minister

had promised me I would get some information from his department as it related

to the inquiry and some questions I had. I said they never responded. They were

a little bit too late, but I did get it. I do want to acknowledge that they

actually did send the email and I did get the information. I thank the minister

for that. I wish I had gotten it a little earlier so I would have had the

information prior to speaking to the last bill, but I did get it. So I do

acknowledge that.

Mr.

Chair, I listened to the Member opposite there and what he had to say and I

agree with him. There's a lot of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

We are very fortunate from a resource perspective. We are what I would say

resource rich but, at this point in time, we're cash poor. That's really what it

comes down to. There's absolutely no doubt that when you look at our potential

for oil and gas and so on, there is tremendous opportunity in the future when it

comes to our oil reserves. There is tremendous opportunity when we look at our

natural gas reserves. I heard the Member talk about minerals, talk about mining

and there's no doubt, the trough up in Labrador is rich with minerals.

I was

told of at least four or five different mines that are there to be developed at

some point in time. There is probably 10 times that, but for sure there are five

or six of them, I think, whether it be iron ore, uranium or different things

that are up there. We have gold mines here on the Island. We had the fluorspar

mine. Nobody here, I don't think, is denying the fact that we have these

resources, that we are blessed to have them.

We have

a fishery that despite the challenges that we continue to do through, and we can

talk about that and I could talk about the surf clam issue and other issues

around adjacency and so on, but it's still a billion-dollar resource. I think

it's over a billion dollars in terms of the fishery for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We have

tremendous potential when it comes to the tourism. I heard the Member for

Bonavista the other day talking about this district. There is no doubt, when you

look at the Town of Bonavista, you look at Cape Bonavista, the Dungeon, the root

cellars in Elliston, the fishermen's museum and so on, absolutely beautiful area

and absolutely wonderful opportunities for tourism.

We have

lots of opportunities on the Northern Peninsula, whether it be up in the Gros

Morne area, in particular, comes to mind – lots of opportunities there. We have

lots of opportunities on the West Coast. That's actually a real gem because we

have opportunities not just in the summertime and in the fall, but the winter as

well.

I don't

think anybody here – I would hope not – would want to give the impression that

we don't have anything going for us or that we're not going to turn the corner

at some point in time. I really believe we are going to turn the corner at some

point in time, and the sooner the better.

Anything

this government can do to turn that corner, I'm with them 100 per cent. I'm sure

every Member in the House of Assembly is with them 100 per cent if there are

things that we can do to help turn the corner and to develop our industries,

develop things like our IT sector, develop other industries, our aquaculture – a

great opportunity for aquaculture.

I will

say, though, in terms of the aquaculture, providing all of the environmental

work is done and done properly and full processes, it's a wonderful – we've seen

the Connaigre Peninsula, which has been revitalized because of aquaculture. We

know there's going to be a tremendous opportunity on the Burin Peninsula with

the Grieg project.

really, sincerely hope that it can be done, it can be done properly and it can

be done in an environmentally sustainable way. I don't have all the answers. I'm

not an environmental scientist, I don't know, but it has to be done properly. We

have to follow all the environmental procedures. If that's done and it can be

done properly, I'm on board 100 per cent. It's going to bring a lot of jobs and

that's a good thing.

When I

hear this talk about preaching doom and gloom, I take a little bit of exception

to it. It's not about preaching doom and gloom; we have a lot of positive things

going for us, but it's also living in reality. It's one thing to say the glass

is half empty versus half full, it's another thing to talk about looking at

things through rose-coloured glasses as well or burying your head in the sand. I

think we just have to be realistic about not just where we're going to go in the

future, which is important, but where we are now.

I think

we have to be cognizant of the everyday citizen. If you are somebody who is

struggling to make ends meet, then the fact that we have a bunch of mines in

Labrador that are going to be developed at some point in time, or at some point

in time – if we discovered 10 new oil wells tomorrow, by the time that actually

brings in oil and then we actually start getting royalties from it, that could

be like 10 years out.

That's

wonderful and it bodes well for our future, our children, our grandchildren, but

the person who is trying to make ends meet today, that really is of little

consequence to them. That's of little consequence to them about what oil is

going to do or minerals are going to do 10 years from now; it means nothing to

them.

So I

think that there has to be a balance. There has to be a balance about planning

for the future, being optimistic for our future but, at the same time, we have

to be dealing with the here and the now and the people that are trying to live

and survive in the province right now.

There's

no doubt, I will say that the government talks about all the time we brought in

this new enhanced seniors' supplement program and they get their money four

times a year and that helps. It does help. I'm not denying it, but that's for

the lowest of the low from an income point of view. That's fine for the person

who's on the very, very lowest end of the scale. But what about the senior who

is just getting their Canada Pension, their OAS and maybe they're getting a

small work pension? Not somebody who's retiring on $70,000 or $80,000 a year but

someone who maybe they're getting an extra $10,000 a year and now they have a

house they have to maintain. They have a small car or whatever they got. That

senior supplement is not helping them because they don't qualify for it. They

don't qualify for that. They don't qualify for the drug cards. They don't

qualify for any of the programs through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing on

home repairs and stuff like that because they're just above that limit.

There

are an awful lot of people that are in that boat, Mr. Chair, an awful lot of

people. Those are the people who could least afford a lot of the measures that

were taken in 2016 budget and so on and a lot that have been maintained since

that time. I' m not going to rehash all that, that's not my intention and we

have to look at it on a go-forward basis but I would just say to government we

have to be cognizant – we cannot pretend that those things didn't happen. We

can't pretend that it's not impacting people because it is. It is impacting

people. It's impacting business.

If you

go downtown, even people who are at the higher end – I say the higher end or the

mid-scale salaries, who could suck it up, who could suck up the increases, so to

speak. You go downtown on George Street or down to the bars and restaurants and

places which are where people typically spend their – that's where the

expendable income goes. Go to those places, talk to the restaurant owners and

stuff like that, ask them how business has been. Business is down significantly

because people don't have that additional revenue, they don't have that

expendable income and it's impacting business and it's impacting the day-to-day

lives of people.

So there

are people who have been affected in different ways. I hope as time goes by and

things improve we can look at, over time, trying to rein back some of those

measures that were taken. I understand government, we're in a tough spot, I get

that and I hope that as time goes on we can make the improvements we need to for

the people of the province.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Chair, it's quite an

honour to rise in the hon. House to represent the great District of Harbour

Main. It's always an honour to rise in this hon. House and as far as me giving

it to anyone, no, I'm just a nice person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

I have reputation to uphold.

We're

talking about the doom and gloom. I only can say good things in my district.

From the District of Harbour Main good things are happening right through to

Clarke's Beach, down to North River. Wherever I go, there are small businesses,

there's always a hand there; but I have an important topic to talk about today

and it's an honour, it's International Women's Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

I just left, with my

colleague for the great District of Harbour Grace, about an hour ago, an

empowering event with about 180 women in a room, and I got to sit with a lady

who celebrates her 100th birthday on Sunday, and I'm going to help her do that.

But most important of all, we talked about changes. We talked about 100 years

ago when women were not permitted to do the things they can do today.

When I

looked in that room today and saw mayors, business people, young women, it was

empowering because we all are strong. My colleagues here in the House on both

sides, our Clerks, we're all mothers, have families and at the end of the day

it's an important job here. You have to go home at night and you have the

families, but I'm going to talk on another thing that's very dear to my heart

today. Sometimes it covered under the rug but I can't cover anything under the

rug.

I've

been going through a great challenge in my life for the last three weeks. My

22-year old son had a severe accident and was on life support for nine days in a

burn unit. But do you know what? My son is important. I sat by his bed, but the

mental illness part – and I want everybody out there in any district of

Newfoundland and Labrador to realize that mental illness don't just come to any

family, it's in every family. If we keep pushing it under the rug, there's not

going to be anything done about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

It's like what's coming with

the #MeToo movement. That's being exposed now and things are moving. They're

talking about it.

Going

back to mental illness, I'm hoping we're going to get the new Waterford because

until the day I close my eyes, I will always have that worry where my son is

going to be. It's every parent's worst nightmare when you get that call. It's a

call no one wants to get.

I had to

take that call on a Sunday afternoon to tell me my son was on fire in a field.

That wasn't a great call. I sat by his bed day and night and I'm here at the

House, too, to do a job for my constituents.

fellow colleague spoke yesterday with a group in the House about a young lady

who had lost her life. I don't want anyone else to lose their life. We want

people to be able to come to talk to people and before this really happens. It's

like mental health day, Let's Talk, if no one is talking, no one is listening.

We need to put the supports in place. We need to be there because it's an

illness today that's costing top dollars in the medical care system.

If my

son maybe had been listened to, it wouldn't have cost $5,000 today in an ICU to

keep him alive, but he's alive now. When I walk out of that room and he says I

love you, Mom, I know it's there. We all have to realize – I know we talk about

our province, the shape it's in and everything else, but there are other things

in our province, like I said, it's the mental health, it's our families.

We are

strong women. If we weren't strong women today, we would not be able to do the

jobs we do. We have to separate work sometimes from family, we have to come

here. But I must admit, my colleagues in this House have been the best that

anyone could ask for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

When I go to our party Whip

every week and say: I have to be at the hospital to sit by his bed – go, no

problem. Each and every one of you on the other side of the House takes time to

ask and that's important.

Our

Government House Leader: Don't worry, do what you have to do. Like I said, after

attending that event today and seeing all those women from 17, 18, right up to

100, what does that tell you? That tells you that our province is doing

something right also because events like these and people moving, people

chatting is what causes these good things. We need good things in our province.

We need

a new Waterford and I'm going to advocate for that. As long as I'm standing

here, I will advocate. It's not only my son, it's someone else's daughter, it's

someone else's father, it's aunts, uncles; no one escapes mental illness. That's

what I want to talk about today. It's not under the rug anymore and we shouldn't

push it there because it's a stigma.

When my

husband was diagnosed with cancer, there was no stigma to that. He went in and

had his chemo treatments and walked away with me, but when it comes to mental

illness and you're seen going up those steps at the Waterford, it's a different

ballgame.

I've

been on all sides of the fence, but I'm also lucky enough to be standing here in

the House of Assembly today with my great colleagues on both sides of the House

to support – and that's what we're here for – one another. I know we throw

things back and forth at each other, but at the end of the day, when our

meetings are over, the House ends, we all go out there and we're civilized

people again, which we should be.

Anyway,

as far as my district, great things, like I said, are happening. I attended the

mental health for the dip Sunday morning which raised a lot of money. It's

great. It's great that things are happening. We're doing well in the district.

We just had a new distillery open in Clarke's Beach. We're going to honour him

soon in the House.