PDF Version

March

15, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 68

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I would move that the House

resolve itself into a Committee, seconded by the Minister of Education, to

consider Order 2, Committee of Supply, a resolution and Bill 71 respecting the

granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty much to the chagrin of my colleagues

on the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to debate

Interim Supply.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

considering the related resolution and Bill 1,

An Act For Granting To Her

Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2018 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service

AN HON. MEMBER:

Bill 71.

CHAIR:

Bill 71, sorry.

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, 2018, the sum of $2,703,698,200.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm

happy, as I have always been, on every single occasion I've had the opportunity

to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the people of my district and on

behalf of the people of this province. And certainly happy to stand here today

and speak to Bill 71, and to speak to Interim Supply, a bill that many people in

the province I guess generally wouldn't be aware of. It certainly wasn't

something I was aware of prior to being elected and coming in and having this

debate. But during my four years in Opposition and during my first year in

government, I've obviously learned more about this process.

Now, one

of the things I want to talk about is that and again

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

there's no doubt that there

has been some significant conversation over this in the last day, and I look

forward to the commentary from my colleague, the Third Party House Leader; I

look forward to her comments on this important piece of legislation. I look

forward to anything that the Third Party might have to say to this important

bill today. Because I like to be here in this House and I like to speak to

legislation. And I hope that she will take the opportunity to speak to this

legislation.

I know

that the Independent Member, the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands do you

know what? I know he will speak to this. To give him credit and there are

times I find it hard, but to give him credit he has spoken to most pieces of

legislation in this House aye, nay, whatever depending on what side of the

House he was on, either side, he's spoken to legislation. This is no different;

this is an important piece.

So what

we saw yesterday was a conversation on Interim Supply and how the Opposition

doesn't feel that they want to talk to it. In fact, they haven't taken many

opportunities to speak to it. Even though when they were in government they had

plenty of opportunity and exercised that opportunity to speak in this House.

I'll continue to exercise my opportunity to speak to it. This is a chance to

speak to the budgetary process of this province.

Now,

what many people don't realize is that the budgetary process under this

province, in many ways, is controlled under the Standing Orders: a very old,

historic number of sections where we talk about the budget process. You have to

spend X number of hours debating this; there are different headings of

expenditure that we speak to. These are all things that could be changed by a

Standing Orders Committee.

What I

will point out, that people should realize, is that the Members opposite, who

sat in government for 12 years, had every opportunity to update, to modernize,

to change how we do business in this House of Assembly. Madam Chair, they did

nothing. They did nothing.

What I

will say is that since we've taken over and I, as Government House Leader, have

been on the Standing Orders Committee and we have representation from all sides

the House Leader of the Third Party is on it; the Deputy House Leader for the

Official Opposition is on it; my colleague for St. George's Humber is on it;

the Deputy House Leader for government is on it. And we've had an opportunity,

we've met on a number of occasions and we've brought change to this House, to

the Standing Orders. Little things that wouldn't matter to the everyday person,

like quorum, the number of Members you need to sit here in the House.

We've

had an opportunity to speak to how we conduct business in terms of filibusters

something that is substantive. We've had the opportunity we're actually here

right now, Madam Chair, on a Wednesday morning, talking about the House of

Assembly, that hasn't been done. It's a way to change.

The next

change that we are going to talk about is having a committee structure in this

House. Something that we haven't seen in about 15 years in this House, something

that fell out of vogue and that the people have talked about, we've talked about

in this House, we talked about when we were in Opposition, the Third Party has

talked about it. We're going to work on making that a reality again as well.

We can

look at petitions; we can look at Members' statements. There are a number of

things we can look at. But one thing we can also look at is the budget process.

Now again, what I will state is that the Members opposite are complaining about

having to stand up and speak in this House to the budget. Now, a couple of

things I will note, that people should remember: (

a) they did the opposite when

they were here, big time. They spoke when they were over here, but don't want to

speak over there. Why you won't take the opportunity to speak in this House, I

have no idea.

Madam

Chair, (

b) they have had every opportunity if they didn't like the process, to

change the process and they didn't do it; (

c) they know they are in the House

and they have an opportunity to stand and ask questions and engage in an actual

meaningful debate, but they choose not to engage in that debate.

I've

said this, if either one of the Members on the other side stood up and asked me

a question about the Justice Department as it relates to budget, to practice, to

procedure, to the issues that we face every day and certainly there are a number

of issues within my department that I deal with on a daily basis, I'm happy to

stand here and engage in a meaningful debate, and this is the forum to do it.

In many

cases, it's hard to do it. Because the way the House is structured we have

Question Period, which again is 30 minutes and it's a chance to stand up and ask

questions, but that's just 30 minutes. When you're having a debate on any other

bill recently we talked about the Health

Professions Act , we talked about the

Patient Safety Act , those are not opportunities to speak to, say, the

Justice Department, or Education.

If they

have questions, they can't ask them during those debates because you have to be

specific; you have to be relevant to those pieces of legislation. Those are good

debates, but they are specific debates. When we talk about Interim Supply, when

we talk about the budget, when we talk about anything that's called a money

bill, this is an opportunity to stand up and actually engage, I think, in a very

meaningful debate.

I would

welcome that opportunity to have that, but right now that is not happening. We

are not getting that. I'd be happy to stand here and speak, I'd be happy to

stand here and answer questions and engage in that debate, but they are choosing

not to do that.

So,

Madam Chair, I look forward, as the Standing Orders Committee moves forward, to

having these conversations, along with House staff who have been there and seen

the evolution of this. I'm happy to have that conversation and to talk about,

what are the things we can do to modernize this House of Assembly. What are the

things we can do to make the debate more relevant, more meaningful? I'm happy to

do that.

I'm also

happy to stand here and speak to the budgetary process as a whole. Again, I've

talked about how the I think the best part, in my mind, when it comes to the

budget debate is the Estimates section, which is an opportunity to stand here in

the House sorry, sit here in the House, and ask questions back and forth. It's

not confined to just a Question Period, where sometimes there's a bit of

theatrics to it. This is a chance to ask actually ask some questions on the

expenditure funds. What did you spend last year? What are you budgeting this

year? Is it higher or lower? Why is it higher or lower? What are the different

things that you're doing?

Then

move into general policy; we've had those debates. I'd love to have that. I

think it's an excellent chance to talk about your department. I can actually do

that right now. I can do that right now and have that. I'll be happy to answer

any questions they have, but I guess what I'm saying, Madam Chair, is that if

the Opposition doesn't ask those questions, it makes it very hard to answer

them.

So I'm

happy to stand here when we have this opportunity to speak now, I hear the

Members of the Third Party chuckling over there, chuckling. So I'm hoping

they'll take an opportunity to stand up and ask some questions. I'd be happy to

speak to it's funny, because it was only a couple years ago I heard them

talking, we're not going to heckle. Madam Chair, I'll put it on the record, it's

funny how things change.

Thank

you for this opportunity, I look forward to another chance.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's an

honour to stand in the House of Assembly once again to debate Interim Supply.

I'm not going to get into the whole debate over the politics around this because

it has happened on both sides, there's no doubt about that.

The only

thing I will say, though, is the only objection I would have with the process is

that if we were just talking about a regular money bill, where you could stand

up and talk about whatever you wanted, that's one thing. The issue here, though,

that I think everybody on this side has, is that it's eating into the budgetary

debate time. That's really our issue, is we would rather see the budget and have

that extra time to debate the actual budget itself as opposed to just taking the

time away from the budget and stand up and talk about whatever it is you want to

talk about, which is really what you're going to see happening; we saw

yesterday, we're going to see again.

There

will no doubt be Members up talking about what a wonderful district they have. I

went to this tea party and that tea party and I'm doing great work for my

district. That has nothing to do with the actual budget. We think that time

would be better spent debating the budget; but, with that said, I have two

choices. I can either sit here and say nothing and watch the government Members

get up one after another and use up all the time this morning, because it's

going to happen, or I can take advantage of some of that time myself to at least

raise what I consider to be some important issues.

I have a

couple that I want to just put on the record at least. I'm not saying if

anything is going to change, but they are issues and I think they need to be put

out there.

The

first one I want to talk and these are health care related. The first one I

for a while. I think it was in the news as well. It relates to a couple, a

husband and wife, they were let me see. The gentleman is 90 years old; his

wife will be 87 years old in May. The wife now is in Clarke's Beach. Both of

them were in Clarke's Beach because they were Level 2 in a Level 2 facility. The

husband took ill, and as a result of that he's considered a Level 3 and he ended

up getting moved to Saint Luke's in a Level 3 facility.

Now,

obviously, he needed to go there because he needed the care, but the issue we

have is that here he is now having to leave Clarke's Beach and go to Saint

Luke's Home, a 90-year-old man, while his 87-year-old wife, his partner for the

last 50-odd, 60-odd years, whatever it is, is left in Clarke's Beach. She can't

move with him because she's only considered a Level 2, and she can't go to a

Level 3 facility.

Now,

there was a time certainly I know at Saint Luke's, there was a time before it

was taken over by Eastern Health, when it was run by the Anglican Church and so

on, where basically if you went to Saint Luke's and you stayed in the cottages,

at Bishop Meaden Manor and so on, when you got to a point that you could no

longer stay in those cottages, that you would automatically go into the home

that's there. That way, it was called at the time they called it, it was under

a former administration in their earlier days, I think the concept was called

aging in place. That was the concept they were going for.

In other

words, as a senior you could go to a facility, you could start off perhaps in a

cottage. Then when you couldn't stay in the cottage anymore perhaps you could go

into an apartment, and then you would go into the home. Now, of course, we got

this first available bed policy, and of course they're not allowing Level 2s

into a Level 3 facility.

From a

dollars and cents perspective, I understand why that is, because they're saying

if we got a Level 3 facility and we've got doctors and RNs or whatever on staff,

it's much more costly. So the cost per bed, we can't tie up a Level 3 bed and

the cost associated with a person who's only a Level 2, because it's much more

expensive. I understand the dollars and cents, but surely God, from a

compassionate point of view, somewhere along the way compassion has to play a

role in this.

In this

particular case, here we have a couple, as I said he's 90, she's going to be 87

in May, been together practically their whole lives and now they're separated,

Clarke's Beach and St. John's. There's something terribly wrong with that

picture. He'll probably die of a broken heart before she does. The stress it's

having on that individual both individuals, not just one, both of them and

the stress on the family, it's just absolutely terrible, it's absolutely

appalling.

I appeal

to all Members of the House of Assembly; we need to find a better way of taking

care of our seniors. I'm not pinning it on this administration. They've only

been there a year or so. This didn't just happen overnight. This is something

Eastern Health has been doing now for the last two or three, or three or four

years, whatever it is, when they changed the policy. I'm not blaming anybody,

but I'm just saying to all Members of the House that this is a real situation,

real people. This could be my grandmother or grandfather tomorrow. It could be

yours. It could be your parents, or God willing, if we live long enough, it

could be you or I.

Just

imagine now, you're married, with your spouse you've raised a family, you've got

grandkids or whatever, the love of your life, your soulmate, your partner, and

after all those years you get separated like that. Not even being able to see

your husband or your wife or whatever.

remember when my mom passed, and my dad was never the same never. For 10 years

he lived after she had passed and he was never the same. I can remember at my

dad's wake, a gentleman came in I didn't know who he was and he came up to

me, he was the caretaker. I didn't know, but he told me he was the caretaker at

the Salvation Army graveyard where my mom was buried they're both buried now

and he came in because he said I knew something had happened to your dad. I

said: What do you mean? He said: I knew something had happened because for the

last 10 years, I could look at my watch, I could look at the day and your dad

was there every single day for 10 years that your mom passed, he was there, sat

there in his lawn chair every single morning basically the same time every day,

for 10 years.

That's

just an example of the connection that people have because she was his life. She

was his life and when she died, part of him did. And that was a comfort he had,

was to be able to at least be close to her. Now imagine when you're alive;

imagine when you have that situation of a couple, been together their whole

life, and they're alive. Now you're going to say to an 87-year-old woman and a

90-year-old man, we're going to separate you. You're going to stay in Clarke's

Beach and you're going to go to St. John's.

There is

something terribly wrong, Madam Chair something terribly wrong with that

system. I don't care, money be damned I apologize if that's unparliamentary

word, but anyway, you get my point. Somewhere along the way, in this equation,

it cannot be simply about dollars and cents. It cannot be. We're talking about

human lives. This is not widgets; this is people. This is human beings and I

urge the government, I urge the Minister of Health and Community Services and

I know he knows what I'm saying is right here, and I know that he would want to

do the right thing; I know everybody would.

It's not

going to happen overnight; I understand that. But we really need to look at a

better model. I think this whole model, like I said, they had years ago, or at

least that was what they were moving towards, this aging in place model, is

something we really need to look at having. So that for example, if you decided

you were going to go to again I'll just use St. Luke's as an example. At St.

Luke's now you have cottages, you've got Bishop Meaden Manor, you've got

cottages and then you've got the home, which is Level 3. You need something in

between. You need something in between.

You need

like an assisted living facility also at that same location, so that you can go

from one stage to the next to the next, but you get to stay at the same place

for your entire time, where you have familiar surroundings, you know the staff,

you have friends, you're close to family, and you get to live and, eventually,

pass away in dignity.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thanks, Madam Chair.

It's an

honour for me to stand, another year, and speak to the Interim Supply bill, Bill

71, and I'll talk a little bit about this bill and what it means and what the

implications are. This bill is compelling government basically to borrow about

$2.7 billion dollars. I'll speak for a minute about why it is government is

borrowing as much as it has to these days, but I just want to comment on the

events here in the House of Assembly yesterday.

I was

fairly surprised that the Opposition Members, the PC Opposition and the NDP

Opposition, stood here and tried to shut down the debate yesterday on the

Interim Supply bill, considering that we had only had 4 hours, or fewer than

five hours' worth of debate on the Interim Supply bill when both the Opposition

Parties tried to silence the government on speaking about this bill.

It was

especially curious considering, last year, the PC Party chose to spend 19 hours,

I think it was, debating this bill, and I never heard a single complaint. Some

of the same people are sitting over in those seats right now in Opposition. I

never heard a single complaint from them about having that length of time to

discuss an important bill that involves borrowing $2.7 billion dollars. It

really gives you a sense of the PC Party's appreciation for the gravity of

borrowing that massive sum of money that they just want to, after 4 hours, vote

on it and whatever, and just move on.

That

really, I think, gives people an indication of one of the reasons why we're in

the fiscal crisis, mess, situation that we're in today; because that party

really has no interest in having any sort of debate, just borrow, borrow,

borrow, borrow and don't talk about it. So I thought that was very interesting.

The

Deputy House Leader, the Member for Mount Pearl North got up and he basically

implied and he can stand up and correct me if I'm wrong that that was

because every year the Opposition would drag out the debate. Well, the PC

government had a majority over here if they wanted to not have any further

debate, whenever they wanted to not have any further debate it looks to me

from the numbers from the 12 years that they were in government, every time they

got close to 20 hours, they just shut it down. So we never shut it down as

Opposition one time. I'm just surprised to see the NDP cheerleading for this,

but there is nothing that really surprises me these days in any case.

This is

a good opportunity for Members of government to talk about the state we're in,

why we're in the mess we're in and comment on some of the things that we hear,

the absurd things we hear coming from the Opposition on a daily basis. I have a

lengthy list of this, and I hope that I get a few hours in this debate to

discuss this.

We have

to remember that the PC Party was elected on a promise of no more giveaways.

Everybody will remember no more giveaways, in that somehow everybody previous to

them taking government were giving things away. Which I find is all very

interesting now that the full truth is becoming known about Muskrat Falls and

what that government did to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and future

generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will now have to shoulder

the cost of one of the worst deals, one of the worst giveaways that we have seen

in the history of this province and I would say going back to whenever it was

John Cabot landed on the shore out in Bonavista, I don't think there's been a

worst thing, a worst deal by a governing authority on this Island in this

province in our whole history.

That was

a project there was no Public Utilities Board approval. They couldn't make a

decision because the government would not provide them with the parameters that

they needed to properly examine Muskrat Falls as a power option. It was rammed

through this House of Assembly, those of us who were here I look at the Member

for Torngat Mountains, the Member for The Straits White Bay North, Members who

were here in the House of Assembly who were here for that debate, we were told

we basically weren't going to get Christmas holidays that year if we didn't just

see to the government and just let them get the bill and ram it through the

House of Assembly.

As the

Premier said the other day, and I think people have to remember this because I

looked at oil this week and oil continues this week to be trending downwards

closer to $50 a barrel. This was a project that was sold to us. I remember the

minister of Natural Resources was sitting right here, Jerome Kennedy, telling

the Opposition that oil was going to stay above $100 a barrel for the next 55

years. And here we are, just a couple of years later, and it's getting down

close to 50 bucks cut in half.

So the

people of the province were absolutely misled. We knew, we could tell, we asked

questions and those were times when the NDP used to ask questions about Muskrat

Falls as well, but now they're happy to just let it all go right by and tie

their little orange wagon to the PC Party on Muskrat Falls, which I find

shocking.

We were

told then that Muskrat Falls was the least-cost option. They kept saying it over

and over again. Every one of them, the Members who are there sitting there I

won't name them; they know who they are they would stand up and they would say

it's the least-cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

And I remember saying what

about liquefied natural gas. What about all that natural gas that's being

basically pumped back into the seabed out there now? Because that's what they're

doing. At Hibernia, at White Rose, they're pumping natural gas back into the

seabed. Basically, it's not being used and that renders that resource to a third

of it unusable in the future when you do that with it instead of bringing

natural gas and I remember, I went to Dr. Stephen Bruneau, I think, was a

professor, I went to a lecture down to the university one night and he talked

about how we could have job creation, open up a new industry, there would be

taxation, that we could harness natural gas for the generation of power in

Newfoundland and Labrador. And that was just completely disregarded.

Jerome

Kennedy would stand up here in this seat and tell us that was the least-cost

option because oil was going to stay above $100 for the next 55 years. Sure, no

one in their right mind would believe that. And, of course, here we are just a

couple of years later saying, of course, what everybody knew and people knew

that they were just being sold a bill on goods on Muskrat Falls; people knew.

But it's sad now because what we're looking at is the potential of what we said

in Opposition at the time: of rates doubling.

I know

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, I know he's very well intentioned, he

got up that time, he talked about the plight of senior citizens in the province,

how are people on fixed incomes and there are lots of people who don't have

fancy pensions from the House of Assembly out there. How are those people who

don't have some sort of a pension in addition to their OAS, how are they going

to afford to pay double the power bill? That's absurd. Not everybody can sit

around their propane fireplace and keep warm, right? Not everybody has that

luxury. Not everybody can redo their home and insulate it and make it better for

keeping the heat in. And I'm sure most senior citizens in this province cannot

afford to pay double the power bill. That's just one thing that this PC

government did to people in this province.

It's no

wonder, Madam Chair, it's no wonder that they stood up there yesterday and tried

to silence us, to prevent anybody from standing up over there to say what has

gone on in the past couple of years. If we get 20 hours of debate on the Interim

Supply bill, the same as the PC government did on average for about 12 years in

government, I'm going to stand up here every chance I get and remind the people

of the province why we're in the filthy mess we're in.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

(Inaudible), Madam Chair, if

I may ask I am going to leave of this House to give the hon. Member another five

minutes (inaudible) unanimous consent could be offered.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A few

days ago, I stood in this House and talked about Interim Supply, Bill 71. I'm

pleased to have the opportunity again this morning, Madam Chair, to stand up and

continue on some of the points I was trying to make last week. For those

watching, listening at home, Interim Supply is all about the need for us to

borrow some money so that we can basically keep paying bills until we discuss

the budget. We go through Estimates, as has already been referenced in this

House this morning, and I've got to say going through Estimates last year for

the first time as a new MHA was an interesting experience.

To have

Members opposite, to sit with departments, to go through line by line and pose

questions, to seek clarification, the learning for me and the irony of it is

that we get Members opposite who then come into this hon. House after they go

through Estimate, and they try to make political grandstanding and talk about

the things that we're trying to do as a government to rectify the mess that we

were handed when we formed government in 2015.

The

Leader of the Opposition talks about that there was a $1.1 billion deficit. We

know from the audited financial statements, it was actually $2.2 billion. So we

get criticized many times in this House about going back on commitments. Well,

when you're down an extra billion dollars, it takes some significant changes in

order to catch that up.

I have

to tell you, Madam Chair, one of the comments that were made in this House, and

I take great exception to it, is the Member for Cape St. Francis stood in this

House and said that we, as government Members, were afraid to go in our

districts. Now, I can tell you, I am not afraid to go in my district. I have

spent many, many hours I'm rarely home actually, if you talk to my family. I

spend many, many hours going throughout my district talking to people, talking

about the issues, understanding the impacts of the budget that came down last

year. We knew it was a hard budget. We knew it was going to be difficult on

families and individuals, but we were left with a major mess in this province.

So for

the Member for Cape St. Francis to saying that I, along with my colleagues, were

afraid to go in our districts, Madam Chair, right after the budget came down, I

was in Clarenville. I went to a large skating event at the Eastlink Events

Centre and there were friends of mine, friends who I've known for 20 years,

during the intermission said to me: You got some nerve to be here tonight. I

said: Why is that? With the budget you people brought down. I said: I don't shy

away from anything. I have some understanding of the impact, but I want to hear

from you so that I can bring that back to my colleagues and this hon. House.

So when

the Member for Cape St. Francis says that we're afraid, definitely not not

afraid whatsoever. I look forward to, I welcome every opportunity to go out and

talk to constituents of my district. Just before this hon. House started the

winter-spring session, I met with seniors in my community. There were lots of

references to: Well, Alberta has been able to do things differently than us. I

quickly said to that senior couple: You can't compare what's going on here in

Newfoundland and Labrador with what's happening in Alberta. Number one, we don't

have the population base. Number two, they were budgeting last year a $10

billion deficit on the year. I think their accrued deficit by 2019 will be $58

billion.

As a

province, and if we didn't make some significant changes because of the mess

that we were left, we would have upwards of $22 billion as an accrued deficit in

this province. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that if that day came, we could not

come back from that. So this government had to make some difficult choices; some

choices because of the mess that was left for us.

Now,

we've made some significant investments in this entire province. Last week I

talked about or the last time I stood, Madam Chair, I talked about the issues

impacting a school in my community, which is Riverside Elementary. Yes, we had

to make some tough choices where there were some projects that had to be

deferred, the planned extension on Riverside Elementary when the project was

deferred at 1.6 per cent of the design work done.

Now, I

can tell you, Madam Chair, as the MHA I've been active. I've engaged with the

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development to try to find a solution,

a number of solutions. So we've been meeting with the school community, we've

and we have some solutions that can help rectify the problem of some

overcrowding that we have in the larger spaces, like the cafeteria and the

gymnasium. We've had to come up with alternative solutions because of the mess

we were left.

I'll

tell you another thing that's gone on in my district, Madam Chair. People have

asked me, why has the province been in such a mess? I said well, as the 2015

election was unfolding, of course there were announcements being made

everywhere. In my district, in my home community of Port Blandford, the Leader

of the Opposition showed up with the former MHA and they announced $100,000 for

the design work on a new fire hall and a town hall.

Now,

it's great to make promises. We get lambasted in this House about we make

promises, promises, promises. We have no plan, they say. Well, I can tell you,

in that example of a fire hall, a new fire hall and a town hall for Port

Blandford, it's great to go out and say: vote for us, we'll give you $100,000

and you'll get a new fire hall. I can tell you, Madam Chair, nothing happened

with that commitment, not one thing. Not one thing, it did not move.

I met

with the town council of Port Blandford on a couple of times and it came to the

point that they were tired. The town council was tired of trying to find how

much this project has moved forward, because it had not moved anywhere. Yes,

it's great to go out and say we'll give this to you, but they did nothing with

it, Madam Chair, not one thing. Zero did they do with it.

I can

say that through the help of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment,

I approached him and, you know what, today that design work is moving forward.

The Members opposite talk about that we have no plan, they don't follow through.

That's what we consistently see, they don't follow through, but I can tell you,

Madam Chair, this government does.

We made

commitments. If we see any problems, if problems come to us, we address those

problems. We find the solutions to help the communities in this entire province.

Madam Chair, it has not been easy to fix all those things. Some things will take

time.

I have

less than a couple of minutes before I have to take my seat, but I'll also talk

about the Terra Nova trestle. The Leader of the Opposition was in the community

of Terra Nova and they decided to put a new top on the trestle. As soon as the

top was put on the trestle, all of a sudden realized, it was not structurally

sound. So it had to be closed down.

We've

taken a lot of heat; I've taken a lot of heat. I've been to demonstrations in

the community. People have been very upset and said, why can't we go across the

trestle? Well, an engineer went and did a study and said it was unsafe, but I

can tell you, Madam Chair, we have found the money to fix the problem.

In my

mind, putting a new top on before they did an assessment was a waste of money.

Again, it was another election ploy to try to get re-elected and another mess

that have come to us, to me as an MHA, to try to find a solution. I can tell

you, Madam Chair, the last update I have is that 85 or 90 per cent of that work

has been done. The trestle will soon be open. We have to get engineers in to

reassess it again, but it will connect the T'Railway Park again so that people

who like to snowmobile and get on ATVs and enjoy the outdoors will be able to go

across that bridge again.

Those

are a couple of examples, Madam Chair, of the mess we've been left, and we've

had to find innovative solutions to address some of those concerns that have

come our way and have been left to us as a government.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

It is an

honour to stand on my second occasion to speak to the Interim Supply bill.

Contrary to my last remarks when I spoke a few days ago, what I thought I'd do

today is talk a little bit about that new wonderful department called Service NL

that I'm now minister for.

I've

been on the job for, I guess I'm coming on to week four, and as I was speaking

to my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, this morning, I

am responsible for a lot of things but not everything, as per a particular news

item this morning, and I'll leave it at that.

It's

interesting, when you're speaking about Interim Supply, what you're trying to

do, of course, is to ensure that government continues to function, and Service

NL, as people like to describe it, it is the face of government. There are so

many things we do in that department. It is a fascinating myriad from A to Z,

essentially.

So what

I thought I'd do is just talk about some of the high-level issues. I'm going to

take my first five minutes to do that, and then I want to go to that great

District of Lake Melville and talk a little bit about all the good things going

on up there, because I like to be positive even when others like to try to pull

you back into that cage.

First of

all, Service NL; some of the interesting issues that are on the go right now and

some of the things we do, I just thought I'd throw out a few numbers. We do over

6,000 food premises inspections. There are something like 2,000 inspections and

certificate issuances just for onsite service systems. These are huge numbers in

the volume.

I had a

number here; for example, 20,000 samples of municipal water supplies where we're

actually making sure that water quality is safe to drink and people's health is

protected. There are something like some 12,000 inspections of technical

services, everything from elevators to boiler and pressure vessels, to fire and

life safety inspections. So it's an extremely busy group, and as I find as I

walk around the department and get to know the different people, it's amazing

how different each person's job is in there. So I commend them. I'm looking

forward to getting to know them as much as possible.

Here's

another interesting one that's very directly related to the construction and

building trades industry, and that is the department does some 14,000 electrical

inspections. So before you're approved and certified to proceed, the money that

we are talking about here today needs to go to those staff to do those

inspections so that, frankly, our society can carry on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. TRIMPER:

I could use a bullhorn,

maybe. Maybe that might help.

So it's

a busy department, and some of the busy topical issues, just to give some fodder

to my colleagues in the Opposition, because I'm always looking for questions. I

sit here sometimes a little bored, but give us some issues that are certainly

quite topical these days, things like school bus inspections, our need and our

important topic and I'm heavily involved in that in understanding what needs to

be done and hearing from the various organizations that are concerned.

Pensions

plans are very, very important right now; what's going on around some of our

industrial-dependent communities right now and unfortunate situations around

pension plans and the complex world of actuaries and understanding how a pension

plan works and some of the shortcomings that have occurred unfortunately for

many folks who have come to rely on those pensions and the challenge in sorting

that through. My colleague for Labrador West mentioned just a few days ago some

of the steps that the government is taking to support and help those people.

Occupational disease is another one that's very topical for my colleague for

Labrador West and other folks who happen to be MHAs representing districts

where, for example, there's been mining activity and we're now concerned about

the health of people who've worked on the site.

Certainly, a very topical one as well is the auto insurance system. Taxi drivers

and operators are very concerned. I'm very pleased to say I've been reaching out

to those people in the last few days as they are facing some very tough

financial burden. We're going to be meeting with them as early as tomorrow. So I

look forward to doing that and talking to them.

Another

topical item just from my colleagues for Labrador are two of the recommendations

from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 17 and I think I better not

quote the numbers, but there were two in particular where government has been

asked to help. I've very pleased to say that on behalf of our department and our

government, we will be there to help those people who suffered greatly under

that strategy, I guess I'll call it that, of integrating Aboriginal communities

with Western society and the terrible consequences of that.

that's a little bit on Service NL. I look forward to speaking extensively about

that as I go forward, but I also wanted to take about half my time to talk about

the great District of Lake Melville. As a colleague of mine says right now, he

says it's the place where we get 10 months of winter and two months of bad

skidooing. Skidooing is very much a big theme of how we get around. I'm pleased

to say winter is still very solid in Labrador and we're taking full advantage of

it.

Some of

the activities that have been happening lately, and again relating it to

finances and the availability of cash to help people where they need it, for

example, the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay right now, the previous

administration I have to give them some credit had set up a relationship

with that town recognizing the consequences that they were feeling as a

municipality adjacent to a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project in the

Muskrat Falls Project.

They had

allocated some quarter million dollars a year and a special assistance grant to

give them additional capacity to deal with those issues. I'm very pleased to say

that we've just sent them a cheque for last year's amount, and I understand that

the forwarding amount is also in process for this coming year of another quarter

million to help the mayor, his council and that municipality deal with the

pressures that they're feeling on their infrastructure.

Speaking

of mayors, I also want to give a good kudo to the newly minted mayor of

Northwest River, Derek Montague. Many of us heard, and you can only imagine we

certainly felt some issues with the weekend winds and the loss of power outage.

Well, the community of Northwest River suffered for close to two weeks with

serious water supply issues. The mayor, who is new to the office, needed a great

deal of assistance and the former minister of Service NL, under him and his

team, together with my former department and others, frankly, coordinated a

response to assist him, both with staff on the ground but, as I wanted to draw

in this discussion, financial assistance to help them with a particular

situation that they found themselves in.

Not only

were they dealing with water supplies, but there was also some outstanding

challenges around submitting their past accounts and their audited statements as

to how they are operating as a municipality. So thanks to the co-operation and

thanks to municipal leaders who stepped up. We're more than pleased to

co-operate with them and help them out.

Some

other important things that are going on in Lake Melville, and I'm pleased to

say that my recent colleagues were up helping me make some of these

announcements, and that was some $500,000, a half a million dollars, for four

projects, and that included upgrades to the Kinsmen Park with what is known as a

concrete splash pad. It provides a nice recreational escape in the summertime

because we do get some high temperatures there. So this is something the town,

the communities, were looking for, for some time.

Another

important organization, and we speak about them often I often myself don't

know how to help people who are frankly greatest in need of help and assistance

but when I think about an organization like the Salvation Army and Captain Brent

Haas and his wife Melissa and the role that they play in their community and I

see you nodding your head, Madam Chair, because you are aware, as are all my

colleagues for Labrador, the role that the Salvation Army plays, and the funding

that we were just able to provide to them to help them with an expanded kitchen.

I get to work in that kitchen a few times a year helping to serve meals. I still

wonder why they get me to wear a head net because I don't think I have a lot of

hair to keep out of my eyes, but I wear one anyway, all in the spirit of it, but

most important thing

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. TRIMPER:

Yeah, maybe it's a chin net.

But we

do go there and the community does get involved in helping them serve meals to

folks who really are down on their luck. Tip of the hat, Brent, to you and your

team for all that you do.

Another

very important organization that has shown a lot of leadership and is getting a

lot of things done is President Tony Chubbs of the Labrador Hunting and Fishing

Association. Numerous different projects, they're now working on a marina. I've

met with them several times and looking forward to seeing them make progress. We

just provided to them $29,000 for their hunting and shooting range expansion.

Then

another group of volunteers who've been on the go for decades is the Birch Brook

Nordic Ski Club and the support that we've been able to help them recently.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. TRIMPER:

I look forward to speaking

again, Madam Chair.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

I remind the hon. Member his

time for speaking has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just

going to stand a few minutes. I heard a few comments in the House of Assembly

the last week or so and I just want to stand and clarify some of the comments

that were made. There has been an issue that has been very dear to my heart the

last six or seven years and that is the acute care hospital in Corner Brook.

People know in the House of Assembly and across the province that I fought very

hard for that with our leader, the Premier of the province, and I know with the

Member for Corner Brook and I know with the help from the Minister of Health and

the Minister of Transportation and Works, we brought this to a very satisfying

announcement in Corner Brook.

Madam

Chair, I heard a comment yesterday from the Member for St. John's East Quidi

Vidi: Let's not go in the past. She was asking questions last week about the

hospital and acute care; let's not go in the past. Do you know why she doesn't

want to go in the past? And I don't mean to be picking on that Member but I can

tell you something that disturbed me when I hear her asking questions about the

hospital in Corner Brook. She has yet to make a positive statement about the

hospital in Corner Brook. She has yet to support the hospital in Corner Brook.

She has yet to support the seniors in Corner Brook.

When we

were working on the deal with the mill in Corner Brook, Madam Chair, I was in

Opposition. I worked with, at the time, Jerome Kennedy who asked me to help out

and I did help out. I remember the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi stood

up in the House of Assembly and started asking questions on behalf of the union.

I came over and spoke to Jerome Kennedy at the time and I said: What's going on?

Jerome said: I don't know. And I said: I don't know. Do you know what I did,

Madam Chair? I went out and I phoned the four union people. I said: Who's

speaking for that Member? Do you know what they said? No one.

She got

in her seat, tried to ruin a $110 million deal for the people of Corner Brook,

and never spoke to the union once. Never spoke to the union members once. I can

tell you why I'm bringing that up and she doesn't want to go back to the past, I

know, I know, bringing up the long-term care hospital in Corner Brook because

Wayne Lucas has got concerns.

I'll ask

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, here you're so concerned about

the seniors in Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland, I ask you a question. The

former Canadian Tire building on Herald Avenue, who does all the blood testing,

who goes in and does a lot of the work for the hospital in Corner Brook, let me

ask you a question: Has anybody asked who clears the roof? Does anybody care who

clears that roof? It's the same deal with the long-term care.

As long

as you've got competent public sector workers inside that building working,

there hasn't been a question yet about renting that building. It's a private

building, operated by a private owner, but inside workers are public sector

workers, as we committed to.

remember Wayne Lucas and I don't mean to be picking on him, but I am. I

remember when we were out on the steps and we were in Opposition and they were

talking about private partnership. They wanted to know about the Opposition. I

walked out on the steps in the union rally. Four, five hundred people I walked

out. I walked up to the microphone and I said I'll guarantee you now that public

sector workers will be inside that building. I guaranteed it on behalf of the

Opposition. When the Premier made his announcement, he guaranteed it.

Do you

know what Wayne Lucas did? He walked up to me, shook my hand and said: Eddie,

b'y, there's no misunderstanding where you come from on that. I said: Thank you

very much. When I was out in Corner Brook then, he wouldn't shake my hand now.

Oh, I can't shake your hand; you got rocks in your head. I'll tell Wayne Lucas

now and I'll tell the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I may have rocks

in my head, but my number one concern is the people of Corner Brook, the seniors

of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

I hear when the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi stands up and asks questions about private

partnership why don't you get the details? I ask the Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi and I ask Wayne Lucas: When was the last time you had a senior

ask you why have I got to leave? When's the last time? If it happened to you,

stand up right here now. The Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is in her

seat, Madam Chair.

If you

took a senior's hand, or when you visit seniors from Corner Brook who's out in

Stephenville Crossing, which I have done, saying when am I coming back to Corner

Brook, if that happened to you, stand up. Stand up and say. I went and said I'll

work as hard as I can to get the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. Here's

your opportunity. Madam Chair, she won't stand up because it hasn't happened. Or

when you've got to send seniors out there are seniors right now being taken

from their family, and we're trying to put a stop to that.

And I

hear the questions coming do you know what Wayne Lucas said at the rally in

Corner Brook? Get this now, it's on tape by the way, anybody in the province

do you know what Wayne Lucas said at the rally? I should have a veto on this

long-term care and the hospital in Corner Brook. I should have a veto. So okay,

Wayne Lucas and I know the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is doing

his bidding for him here in the House. What are you going to do with the seniors

if you got a veto and you don't like it, you don't like who's shovelling off the

roof, you don't like it?

So what

are you going to do with the seniors? What are you going to do with the hospital

in Corner Brook that was built? Public sector workers, we will work on the

radiation. The people who've got to drive in now from Corner Brook and Western

Newfoundland because there's no radiation in Corner Brook, aren't you concerned

about them, I ask the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi? Did you meet with

the hospital group? Did you meet with the city councillor who's pleased? Did you

meet with the action committee who are very pleased? Did you meet with concerned

citizens who are very pleased? Did you meet the chair of the Western Health

Regional Board who's very pleased?

Who is

against this? I would love to know who's against this because it disturbs me

when you worked so hard and I know the Opposition is over there now, they made

at least seven promises the hospital's going to be built since 2007. And that's

in the past; we can't talk about the past. But please, please, when we find a

way to keep seniors home with their families, when we find a way that people who

are going through a tough time through cancer, we find a way to keep them in

Corner Brook, to have their radiation treatment, when we find a way to attract

more specialists to Corner Brook and to Newfoundland and Labrador, let's work

together on this.

I don't

care who shovels off the roof, but what I do care is that they'll get top-notch

quality by public sector workers. This is not what the Opposition had planned.

The Opposition had planned and if anybody wanted to see them, I can get that

documentation. They had to take a seniors' home, take a part of the seniors'

lot, move it over here, get a private company from BC to move in with your own

private workers. That was the plan they had. I know there was Sandy Collins out

saying oh, they just passed the deal that we approved. It's absolutely false.

Sandy Collins, you're making these false statements again on behalf of the

Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

You can laugh over there, but

I can tell you one thing, the Member for CBS, you can stand over there laughing,

you can laugh as much as you like, because you want to pick up for your buddy,

but I can tell you, you, your Leader of the Opposition, or anybody over there,

Sandy Collins also was in the government Members when you guys didn't fulfill

the commitments to the City of Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland for the

seniors and the people.

So don't

stand on your little Twitter box and say what we're doing is wrong, because I

can tell you, if any of you got the courage or the guts, let's go out and meet

some of those seniors who now in the next couple of years won't have to be moved

away from their loved ones. Let's move out, let's go out and see them. Let's go

out and meet with the health care action committee to see if they're pleased. So

don't go using seniors if there's something done right, let's work together.

I can

tell the Member from CBS is over there smiling and laughing now, if you had the

courage, you would stand up also. I can tell you if someone on our staff was

making such false, erroneous, misleading statements like Sandy Collins has made

about the hospital in Corner Brook with the long-term care, he wouldn't be in

our office. But you can't do that though, because the Leader of the Opposition

was the one who made the promises over there with the hospital. I'd love to know

how many times he flew out to Corner Brook to make those statements.

So what

I'm saying here, and I've only got a minute left, and I say to the Member of St.

John's East Quidi Vidi, go out and meet some seniors. Go out and sit down with

some seniors. Go out and meet with the action committee, see what you know,

I'll say to the Leader of the Opposition: Do you know who most of the action

committee is? The ones you never called about the deal for Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper. They're the ones on the action committee. Do you know who most of them

are? They're union members at the mill. They're your brothers and sisters.

They're your brothers and sisters out there.

It's

such a good news announcement and to stand in this House of Assembly and give

them some kind of impression that all of a sudden we're just going to put people

in there unqualified to do the work at the hospital, unqualified to do the work

at the long-term care facility, when it's just not true it's just not true.

There comes a time when you have to break ranks. I feel that one of the times

that you should break ranks is when it comes for the seniors of province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I worked

hard with this previous government, and this is where I've got to give Tom

Marshall credit. It took a while, but when Tom Marshall did that hospital study

for radiation when he was premier of the province, it caused a lot of stir. I

have to give him credit because he stood up and said the information I'm getting

is not correct and because of that study that Tom Marshall did, there will be

radiation in Corner Brook so people don't have to travel, and also there will be

room for a PET scanner in Corner Brook. That's where I give Tom Marshall credit

for finally breaking ranks with his own department, his own government and

saying we need to do a proper study.

Thank

you, Madam Chair; I'll be back again to have another few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll

take advantage of the time and bring up a couple more issues. The next issue I

just want to raise, Madam Chair, is the issue of paid family caregivers. So it's

another health issue. That was a program that was brought in I guess by the

previous administration maybe four or five years ago. I believe it was Minister

Sullivan was the minister of Health at the time, if memory serves me. I thought

it was a good program, and I still think it's a good program, because certainly

there are lots of situations where you don't have the availability in a lot of

cases in certain parts of the province of home care agencies and so on to take

care of our seniors and persons with disabilities and so on who require the

care. So when this program was announced to allow family members to be the

caretakers, I thought it was a great initiative. I supported it then and I

support it now.

The only

issue I want to raise, and this is something I certainly have I know I've

raised it with the Minister of Health and Community Services. I sent him a

couple of letters on it as it relates to a specific case, and I'm not going to

get into the details of that specific case because it's like anything, in all

cases there are usually three sides to every story. There's my side, your side,

and then something in between is usually what's totally accurate.

Regardless of any specific case or not, the issue still remains the same. That

is that under this program a spouse cannot be the paid family caregiver. Now, I

don't know exactly what the rationale is for that. I did receive a response from

the department and, basically, the only response I got was that the spouse has,

I guess, an inherent responsibility to look after the spouse. In other words,

you're married, you're husband and wife, you shouldn't have to get paid. You

have that inherent responsibility to look after your wife or your husband in any

case.

understand that, and I understand that government don't want to open up the

floodgates and have everybody caring. To have all of a sudden 1,000 people

putting in applications to say I want to stay home and look after my wife or

look after my husband or whatever. I guess there's a fear it could get out of

hand and so on, and I understand that.

In the

particular case that I had some dealings with, it was a case of a spouse who

she was dying. She was terminally ill. In this case, the gentleman who had been

working in Alberta, going back and forth and so on, he ended up having to leave

his job to stay home to be with his dying wife. She has since passed, but the

point, I think, is that and what I had suggested at the time to the minister

and to the department, and I just want to put it on the record again here on the

floor of the House of Assembly, is that while I understand the rationale and

this inherent responsibility for a spouse to look after another, the fact of the

matter is if I had an ailing spouse, and my brother, as an example, had an

ailing spouse, we could look after each other's wives and get paid for it under

that policy as paid family caregivers.

daughter could look after her mother. A sister could look after a sister and so

on, but the husband can't look after the wife or the wife can't look after the

husband. You have kind of a double standard, and the cost is what the cost is.

Whether I pay a stranger, whether I pay the daughter, whether I pay the aunt,

the cousin, the niece, the nephew or I pay the husband, it's still the same

cost, no different.

course, the issue is, I guess, and what my suggestion was, is that we simply

tweak the policy to say yes, under normal circumstances we recognize that

inherent responsibility and so on, and the policy maintains just the way it is

under normal circumstances; however, in the case where the spouse is deemed to

be terminally ill, palliative, if you will, by a recognized physician, so you

would have all that medical documentation to back up, it's not a subjective type

of thing, it would be somebody is terminally ill. In that situation, the spouse

could be considered the paid family caregiver.

Again,

we were just talked about, when I was up speaking before, about the cruelty of a

situation where you have one spouse separated from another in a different

nursing home because of Level 2 versus Level 3 and so on. This is another case.

Like in this specific case that we had, here's a fellow working in Alberta,

naturally he needed to be home and wanted to be home to care for his ailing wife

who was terminally ill. I think there's nobody here, if you think about it, if

that was your mom and dad, your grandmother or grandfather, if it was you or

your spouse, you would want that as well.

Again, I

am not saying that we totally do away with the program or we turn it upside

down, inside out. I'm saying maintain the program and just simply put in a

provision in policy that allows for that special circumstance where the spouse

is terminally ill, as certified by a doctor, you'd have all the proper paperwork

and checks and balances and so on, in that case the spouse could be the paid

family caregiver. So I just wanted to put that out there again for the

minister's ears and the government's ears as something that could be considered.

I only

have about three minutes left and there are numerous things I could talk about.

I do want to talk about Muskrat Falls again. I'm glad the Minister of Education

raised that, but two minutes and 43 seconds is not going to cut it. So I'm going

to defer until I get another opportunity, but I did listen to the Minister of

Service NL talking about the various things that fall under his department.

There's no doubt, there's an awful lot of regulations and legislation and so on

that does fall under Service NL. I'm well aware of it, as the former critic for

that department.

One of

the items I raised in the House of Assembly when I was critic for Service NL, it

never did get addressed by the former administration and I haven't seen anything

really come forward now with this new administration. Maybe it's in the works. I

don't know, but we continue to have issues in this province as it relates to

landlord tenant's issues and issues with boarding housing. In some cases unsafe

boarding houses and unsafe apartments and living conditions, so-called slum

landlords as we hear it referred to sometimes.

I know

also on the other side of the equation there are issues and concerns that

landlords themselves have and protections they require and things that need to

be changed to bring the landlord tenancy act here in Newfoundland and Labrador

more in line with modern times and so on.

It is

very important, because housing is one of our basic necessities that everybody

needs. It's just not a matter of housing; it's a matter of safe housing. Because

a lot of times when we're talking about safe housing and so on, we're talking

about our most vulnerable people. We're talking about people sometimes who have

mental health and addictions issues. We're talking about people with

disabilities. A lot of times we're talking about seniors and so on. We have a

responsibility in this province, as legislators, to ensure that those people

have safe living conditions. So it's been a long time that we've been waiting

for changes to the landlord tenancies act. It has been brought up in this House

of Assembly numerous times. So I'm hopeful and I throw it out there to the

minister, because he's there, he's listening that I hope we're going to see some

changes coming forward

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

in the near future.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once

again, it's an honour to rise and talk to Bill 71, Interim Supply. Mr. Chair,

not too long ago if someone asked me anything about curling, I would have been

at a loss. One person told me that it's placing a well-placed shot on the ice.

My initial thought, as a hunter, is that this is a lot like seal hunting, Mr.

Chair. But thanks to some of my colleagues, I gained a good knowledge of it and

I was certainly tuned in last weekend. I don't mean to be disrespectful to the

Third Party but, on behalf of the people in Nunatsiavut and Natuashish, I'd like

to bring forward congratulations on behalf of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS:

I know that you follow social

media; there were a lot of people in my district in Nunatsiavut and Natuashish

that were tuned in last weekend to watch Team Gushue win the Brier. It was

certainly an honour to see them up close and personal yesterday. I know a lot of

people in my district didn't have that opportunity and, once again, it was

certainly good to see them and to bring forward congratulations on behalf of the

people I represent.

Mr.

Chair, it's victories like this that we saw last weekend that brings a level of

unity to our province. We saw it from Nain to the South Coast of the Island

portion of our province. We saw it from the West Coast to the East Coast, and

everyone was so proud of Team Gushue. The last time I saw this was, I believe,

2006 when Team Gushue again united the country.

We were

proud to be Canadians at that time, and that's when Team Gushue won Olympic Gold

and represented our country and not just our province. So it's certainly good to

see the team from Newfoundland and Labrador be renamed Team Canada and, once

again, take our hopes to the international curling event in Edmonton.

So I

just want to get that out there that we are proud and I don't think it should be

a one-time thing to congratulate a team that did what they did last weekend. I

think at every opportunity we should be proud of Brad Gushue and his team.

Yesterday, I was a bit astonished, Mr. Chair, that both the PC Opposition and

the Third Party wanted to put an end to Interim Supply. I tend not to speak my

full allocation of minutes. Maybe I don't have that gift for gab, Mr. Chair, but

I do like to make a point and Interim Supply, the four years that I was in

Opposition, gave us that opportunity to say things on behalf of our districts,

on behalf of the people we represent, and to bring issues forward.

Now,

either the Third Party and the Opposition have a level of satisfaction to how

things are unfolding, or they're looking to score brownie points. In the past 16

years, debate on Interim Supply has ranged from 12 to 20 hours. So we would have

to talk about Interim Supply for the next two weeks straight to even come close

to Interim Supply under normal circumstances, Mr. Chair.

If they

choose not to talk to the bill and I know the Member for Mount Pearl

Southlands is rising on his feet and he's bringing issues forward. I have to

commend him for that. So we've all got issues that we like to bring forward from

time to time and I'd like to talk about Muskrat Falls.

Mr.

Chair, everybody in this hon. House and everybody in this province know where I

stand on Muskrat Falls. I didn't support it, I don't support the project, and

I'll just outline a few reasons why. I'll go back to Bill 29 when we sat in

Opposition. I didn't know what a filibuster was until then, but we pushed the

issue on Bill 29 for, I think, 70-80 hours. We had a small team, but we pushed

it until we weren't allowed to do it anymore.

Bill 29

was set up so that the former government could push Muskrat Falls through

without having to explain themselves to the province, and they did that. They

did it knowing that the province was in a financial mess. They did it without

telling the truth to the people of the province. What I mean by that, Mr. Chair,

is that they told us that we had a $1.1 billion deficit. The truth is that we

had a $2.2 billion deficit. That's double an already staggering amount.

Now,

Muskrat Falls, we stood up and we laid out all of the factors as to why this

project shouldn't go ahead. It was the least-cost option. They didn't listen to

us. They didn't listen to any concerns that were forwarded. They pushed the

project through, even though the statistics state that a project such as this

would have cost overruns that would go anywhere from 54 per cent to 108 per

cent. They pushed it through.

Then

came Bill 60 and Bill 61, where they wouldn't let any other power-producing

entity come forward for the next 50 years so they could protect the project

that's causing the financial mess we're in now. They did that to protect the

project that's bringing us a lot of chaos; a project that I don't agree with.

When I

got elected in 2011, the people in my district had one task for me that topped

everything. They wanted broadband. Now, Mr. Chair, the United Nations says that

broadband is a human right. For four years while I sat in Opposition, there was

no movement. As a matter fact, a former minister in the former administration

stood up in the House and said broadband for Northern Labrador, not on my watch.

You can go to Hansard and you can see

that, Mr. Chair.

In 2015,

when we formed the government and there was new federal government, a government

that we could work with, six months and an announcement was made for broadband

upgrades in the district that I represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS:

Now, this didn't come easy.

This is a result of partnerships; people working together. We had input from the

Innu Nation, from Nunatsiavut, from Vale, from Bell Aliant, from the federal

government and from the provincial government, Mr. Chair, and we put the plan

together.

The only

thing I can say right now, Mr. Chair, before I sit down is that the work is

being done. It's not happening fast enough for many of us, but it is being done.

By spring we should see everyone on the North Coast of Labrador hooked up to a

broadband upgrade that will help connect us with the rest of the region, the

rest of the province, the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I rise

again to speak to Interim Supply. I had prepared some remarks. I have to say, I

come from a background where my job was to be fairly detailed. You went through

what you were going to do in your mind before you actually did it. It's a kind

of form of cognitive rehearsal, I think, the psychologists would talk about. And

that's kind of the way I've approached these things, but I have to say over my

short time here I've come to appreciate a different way of doing things, which

is a lot more spontaneous. Indeed, in the Westminster system you're not actually

allowed to use notes. You're expected to speak extemporaneously to try and

encourage a kind of more lively exchange.

So what

I'm going to try my hand at is picking up on some of the things I've heard this

morning. I was actually surprised by comments from the Minister of Education, as

well my colleague from Torngat Mountains, that in actual fact the length of

debate from previous years around Interim Supply was sometimes in excess of 24

talking hours, which is a significant length of time considering as of yesterday

we'd not quite got to five.

The

other feature of the Westminster system is the concept of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, and it's phrased like that for all sorts of historical reasons

because it balances loyalty to the Crown with a duty to oppose government. What

I regard as a significant failing today is that crowd opposite have turned it

into a caucus meeting with their backs to the speaker. Really and honestly, this

is their duty, their role, their responsibility to hold the government to task,

to explain itself as to the legislation that it brings before the House.

This is

a bill, Interim Supply, which essentially asks every man, woman and child in

this province to go into debt for a significant amount of money, not something

to be taken lightly; yet, only two of the six Members opposite, seven Members

opposite, actually have the courtesy of looking at the speaker during the

discussion. Two point seven billion dollars per person divides out to well in

excess of $20,000. I think it would be worthy of a little attention and maybe a

little discussion by them rather than simply vacating the space, which I have to

say, credit to my colleague from Mount Pearl Southlands, has taken up the role

as best as he can.

colleague here talked about not talking about the past, but we really have to

because, again, a theme I brought out when I first got up to speak to Interim

Supply was this conceptual disconnect from the Members opposite between our

current state of affairs and anything they might have done over the last 12

years. Really that's, I think, again from a psychology point of view called

dissociative bias. This has nothing to do with us, you have to fix it, this is a

problem and its arisen day novo. Really, from a conceptual point of view, our

challenge is to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to coin a farming

expression from where I practiced last before immigrating to scenic St. Anthony

on the Northern Peninsula.

The

Member for Mount Pearl Southlands I think makes a very good Opposition MHA.

He, unfortunately, has latched on to a philosophical device called casuistry

which I think he could possibly be regarded as the king thereof. What that is is

a philosophical device which allows you to argue the exception for everything.

There is no policy; there is no generalizable theme that can be derived.

Everything has to be an exception. I think it's summed up in a couple of his

phrases, like money be damned, I think was one of them, and it can't be about

the dollars.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, the disconnect from the previous PC government and

today's situation feeds into a problem from which we cannot disconnect

ourselves. Money can't be damned and it has to be about the dollars, because

$2.7 billion, which is Interim Supply, which is not the whole year. It is simply

a fraction thereof, traditionally, slightly more than a third of the year rather

than a quarter, to simply keep the lights on and pay the salaries come the 1st

of April.

I think

to argue that regardless of the case or regardless of the policy there has to be

an exception is fine if that is actually an exception, but when you generalize

that to every case that comes before you, really and honestly, you cannot have a

policy. The problem with casuistry when taken to the extreme is it's actually a

form of philosophical anarchy. That's essentially what the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands advocates, with the best of intentions, but the road to that

dark and fiery place is paved with good intentions, unfortunately.

I think

the challenge becomes we have to deal with the situation in which we find

ourselves. I admire him for actually getting up and fulfilling his role and his

duties; yet, at the same time, have to chastise him for the hollowness from a

conceptual point of view of any of the arguments he's put forward. They are

well-intentioned and made with a good heart but devoid of any intellectual

merit.

Another

issue for the morning, which was alluded to by my colleague who shares a similar

hairstyle to mine, and again he may have had to wear a hairnet to go into

facilities. In my previous job I still had to wear a hat, despite my follicular

challenges.

Interestingly enough, we spent a couple of day over the previous sessions

talking about amendments to the Health

Professions Act . You know, some would regard that as kind of red-tape,

i-dotting, bureaucracy. Really and honestly, the headlines on CBC news this

morning, and obviously I can't comment on specific charges laid before the court

or specific details, but again conceptually the idea of circumcising people on

kitchen tables in freshwater cabins is one which has no philosophical or

therapeutic merit. It is those kind of things that the

Health Professions Act and its sister

legislation the Medical Act and the act under which the ARNL is constituted are

fundamental instruments.

You go

back historically, and I think you will find the medical acts were the first to

regulate a profession done from the point of view of safety of the public;

although, interestingly enough, at the time other professional groups regarded

those as turf protection and in some way barriers and a form of protectionism.

They were protectionism, but they were designed for the protection of the

general public, contrary to some of the arguments you've seen since.

I think

over the years the medical profession particularly has been somewhat hot and

cold on who they were protecting, but I think with the

Health Professions Act and the good sense of this House, and the

collective wisdom, the value of having legislation such as we passed yesterday,

and making that operate more smoothly through amendments in the light of a

consultative process with the council highlights the parliamentary, the

Westminster system, at its best. I think we can take some comfort from that.

But

again, to loop back to the concept of the Westminster system, I really feel, and

as I said on my previous speaking to Interim Supply, it is our job also to call

out misinformation and errors of omission and commission. We've talked about the

errors and the disastrous approach that got us into this fiscal situation, but

the main error of today is one of utter omission by the Opposition to actually

engage in any meaningful dialogue on a significant piece of legislation, and

they are failing in their duty to the public.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

great to have an opportunity to stand and speak once again. Mr. Chair, I suppose

I could get a little bit defensive and so on from the comments across the way,

but I'll just say that rather than stand here on high pontificating to my

colleagues, I'll continue to raise issues of importance to the people of the

province and to the people I represent.

I make

no apologies for that. I'll say to the Minister of Health I'm not asking

for anything that's unreasonable. The difference between you and I is I have

compassion. The minister is over there talking about the fact we're talking

about health care and we're talking about seniors and he said, yes, it is all

about the dollars it all about the dollars. Well, I would remind the minister

that we were put, elected in this House of Assembly, to care for and to look

after the people. We're not running a business.

I understand that we have to be concerned about the fiscal

situation in our province. We all know the mess that we're in; we all know that.

We all know the debt that we've accumulated, and we all know that something had

to be done to address the debt. We all know that. It's a matter of extremes. I

think the only thing that I've ever disagreed with is the degree of which we've

tackled it. But we got to remember that we were put here, elected by the people,

to look out for their needs.

The only two things that I raised that he seems to have

some issue with is I talked about the fact that in the case of a home family

caregiver, in the case of where one spouse is deemed palliative ,

that the husband or the wife could take care of the spouse. That has nothing to

do with dollars and cents. We can pay the sister or we can pay the husband. We

can pay the aunt or we can pay the wife. We can pay the daughter, we can pay the

son, or we can pay the husband. Dollars and cents do not come into the equation.

We're talking about making a minor change to policy that will cost no more money

but will allow a husband or wife to be with their spouse in their final days at

home before they pass away, maybe after 50 years of marriage.

And I

apologize to the minister if somehow he has some problem with that, that he has

a problem with being compassionate for the people that we elected; too bad for

you if you don't like it, Sir.

I would

also say, the other issue that we talked about, Mr. Chair, also related to an

issue of compassion, and we're talking about separating two people, separating a

husband and a wife that, in this case, have been married for over 50 years, 87

and 90 years old. One is going to be out around the bay and the other one is

going to be in St. John's, not able to see each other. All I suggested was that

we have to, somehow in this policy, insert a little bit of compassion here.

I would

say to the Member for Virginia Waters there, if you have some concerns about

this, if you think I'm wrong, if you think that it's okay what's happening with

this couple, you stand up and say it's okay. You stand up and say it would be

okay if it was your grandparents, I would say. It's not okay. There's something

wrong with that and it's something that we need to fix.

There's

nothing wrong with exploring other models, as was being explored in the past in

terms of this aging in place where we set up a system in the future it may not

help this couple, but in the future have a system whereby we try to put

facilities, group them together where you have your cottages, you have your

Level 2, you have your assisted living, and then you have your Level 3 so that

people can age in place with their family, with their loved ones, with their

friends.

Now, I

don't see anything wrong with that. It's called compassion. That's why we were

elected and, obviously, we're lacking an awful lot of compassion when you look

at some of the things that have been done. The people I've talked to, the

seniors I've talked to, we're definitely lacking compassion.

I think

it's absolutely ridiculous for the minister to stand up here and try to browbeat

me because I'm bringing forward issues that affect the day-to-day lives of

seniors in our province and what we're doing to them. And that's a bad thing

somehow. Somehow I don't know what I'm doing. Intellectually, I'm not at his

level because I actually care about people.

Well,

I'm sorry. I'm sorry if that upsets you, Minister, but I'm here, elected by the

people, to do what's best for them. I will continue to bring these issues

forward and I make no apologies for it. I said I wasn't going to get upset, but

I did.

AN HON. MEMBER:

So much for that.

MR. LANE:

Yeah, you're right; so much

for that.

Anyway,

I have four minutes. The issue was raised with Muskrat Falls and I want to talk

about that again. We can talk about this forever and a day. We all know what

happened, who voted for what and so on. I raised my hand; I voted for it. I have

serious concerns about the information that I was given and the information that

has now come forward.

I have

serious enough concerns that I have written the Auditor General on numerous

occasions. I've written the Premier and I've asked for a complete and thorough

audit of Nalcor, of some of the very serious allegations that are out there

relating to Nalcor, relating to Muskrat Falls, projects that have been awarded

and so on. I would like a full and thorough review.

So far,

I have not received any support from my colleagues in the House of Assembly

have not received it. Never even got a response from the Premier; two letters

I've sent him now and not even so much as an acknowledgement. Why he would not

want to do that is beyond me.

I would

say to all of my colleagues and colleagues opposite, you cannot simply sit back

and say: Well, I didn't vote for it; wash my hands of it. I didn't vote for it.

You voted for it. It's all your fault. Let her go and whatever happens, happens.

We'll just blame it all on you. It doesn't work that way.

We have

very, very serious allegations that have been put out there, allegations of

conflict of interest. The former chair of the board, before leaving, publicly,

it was out there. Remember, let's load the guns. Let's get the ammunition. I

know there was a conflict of interest.

Nobody

has investigated that. Then you have to ask yourself the question: Well, why did

that only come out when he was under fire on the way out the door, after the

Budget Speech that condemned them? Why did he only mention it then? He would

have been chair for a long time before that, between him and the other chair,

the former chair. He didn't say anything then. He only said it after he felt

that he was under attack by the government.

So if he

knew the conflict existed, if he was so sure the conflict existed at that time,

he had to know it existed long before that and he didn't say anything. Doesn't

that raise a red flag to anybody? Who else could be under in conflict of

interest? I don't know. Could there be more? Maybe so, maybe not.

We have

a former, allegedly a former engineer of Nalcor who's out there quoted in social

media. It's all out there, Uncle Gnarley's Blog, Des Sullivan. I don't know if

it's true or not but, by the god, the allegations are very, very serious. He's

talking about people actually falsifying numbers and putting it out there to the

public. I mean that's what's there. I encourage every Member to read it. If you

haven't read it, whether we can prove it or we know it's true or not, read it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

He's actually saying that

numbers were falsified. He quit because they were falsifying numbers. That is

serious. This is serious stuff.

Why

would we all not want to get the Auditor General in to investigate this stuff to

find out what's going on? You can't simply say well, I wasn't there, I didn't

vote for it, so therefore it doesn't matter. You know about it, I just told you.

You know about it, we all know about it. These things have to be looked in to.

I'm blown away why we wouldn't want to investigate these things.

Give the

Auditor General the resources he needs to go in there and let the chips fall

where they may. If everything is done above board and there is no conflict and

there was no numbers falsified and all that, as the allegations say, if that

didn't happen, if that's all hearsay, it's not true, let them prove it.

Let the

AG go out, do the investigation and say all that was wrong. Now we've cleared

the air, we know there's no issue, but we don't know that. We don't know that.

For to have those red flags waving in front of us and we're not doing nothing

about it, it blows my mind. And I'm someone who voted for it. I'm someone who

voted for the project, and I'm saying we need to get the Auditor General into

Nalcor.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't

go into the numbers and some of the information I had in front of me the last

time. I do want to speak for a few moments on some of the communities in my

district, but before I get there I would like to, in a

preamble, point out that

while some governments, and some people for that matter, may have stockpiles of

cash lying around and can dispense of the need to borrow, we on the other hand

as a government need to ensure continuing necessary services for our people

which, without doubt, requires the passage of Bill 71.

I'd also

like to say to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands on the issue of

compassion, I've lived a full lifetime, especially in my role as a mayor and a

councillor, with great concern for the people in Botwood, Newfoundland. I can

assure you that I totally agree with your concept of compassion, but I also want

to reassure you and everyone in this House that in my brief dealings over the

last year and a half or so with the Minister of Health that he too is a

compassionate individual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Now, to my other colleague

for Cape St. Francis, a former mayor pleasure to know him. A former hockey

player; we've got stuff in common. I know, I've done it myself on occasion,

probably not chosen the wording I should have chosen, and I know that's what

happened to you a little while back, on calling us out on the issue of being

fearful of going back to our districts.

The

little bit I know of my colleague across the way from Cape St. Francis, and I

think he should know a little bit about my background, is I went into the

corners, as he did, with some bigger and meaner people than myself and I've

never shied away from anyone. I'd like to think that each and every person in

this House are there for the people they represent and the people back in each

and every one of our districts can be reassured that, from my experience so far,

you've got good representation here, on both sides of the House. There are no

cowards here. I just wanted to get that out there.

Anyway,

Mr. Chair, if I may have your indulgence. Today is my dad's birthday, and he's

79. He's back in Botwood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

He's celebrating his birthday

on this day that's known as the Ides of March, and we all know the history of

that.

Mr.

Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Exploits District. My

district exemplifies close-knit communities, cultural preservation,

consideration of Aboriginal history and rights, economic improvement, natural

resource management and promotion of tourism.

The

Exploits District encompasses a varied and distinct group of communities which

range from the more populated Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, which serves as the

main service area for the area, to less populated communities such as Bishop's

Falls, Norris Arm, Botwood, Peterview, Northern Arm, Phillips Head, Point of

Bay, Cottrell's Cove, Fortune Harbour, Point Leamington, Leading Tickles and

Glovers Harbour, which contribute much to the district in their own significant

ways.

Each of

these towns, communities and outports have their own rich history relating to

the earliest settling of the area with its eventual unfortunate eradication of

our native people, the Beothuks, to early industrialization and use of our

resources in logging, papermaking and fishing.

Exploits' considerable milestone in business, manufacturing, military activities

and aviation make this district one of the great stories of perseverance and

success.

Grand

Falls-Windsor; as I share this flourishing community with my colleague, the

Minister of Transportation and Works, I want to point out that despite the

recent turndown in the area's economy, Grand Falls-Windsor, even with the

departure of Abitibi-Consolidated, has steadfastly continued to not only

survive, but thrive.

The

closure of Teck's Duck Pond mine also meant a loss of many jobs throughout the

region. The current state of the mineral exploration in nearby districts has

affected several companies in Grand Falls-Windsor as well. A bustling mini

metropolis, Grand Falls-Windsor is the largest town in the district, and the

third-largest town in the province.

Grand

Falls-Windsor is a crucial service centre for the entirety of Central

Newfoundland. It boasts superior industrial and commercial supply

establishments, as well as wholesale distributors and retail stores. Health

care, religious associations, social activities, such as the Exploits Valley

Salmon Festival, and service clubs are widespread. Fortunately, most of Grand

Falls-Windsor businesses are healthy and flourishing and the town slogan relates

Perfectly Centered is well-suited.

The

natural beauty of the Grand Falls was the basis of the town's name, as in 1768,

Lieutenant John Cartwright named the falls as he was following the Exploits

River. One hundred and thirty-seven years later in 1905, Alfred Harmsworth, also

known as Baron Northcliffe, decided to look for a new site to build a pulp and

paper mill due to the possibility of war in Europe. Harold Harmsworth and Mayson

Beeton discovered the Grand Falls and informed Alfred that they thought it

suitable as the location for a pulp and paper mill because of the heavily wooded

area for pulp and lumber, the potential for hydro-electricity and the nearby

port of Botwood.

The

Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company was formed on January 7, 1905. The mill

was constructed and the first paper was produced on December 22, 1909. Only

workers at the mill and private businesses were allowed to live in the Town of

Grand Falls; others settled in Grand Falls Station. Later, at the time of the

the towns' amalgamation in 1991, the name has been changed to Grand

Falls-Windsor.

The AND

Company set up a town which catered to the social, religious and athletic

requirements of all of its residents. Several churches were established in the

area once it was settled with permanent residents, and a priority was put on

music and the arts in the town. Many types of sport teams were organized. Grand

Falls was incorporated in 1961; eventually the Price Brothers and Company

Limited bought a large amount of AND Company stock.

Grand

Falls-Windsor is the home to the Mary March Provincial Museum, named for

Demasduit's European given name, exhibiting the Beothuk people, geology,

industry and natural history. Another tourist attraction, the Salmonid

Interpretation Centre, situated on the Exploits River salmon ladder, sees

thousands of visitors each season.

The

Loggers' museum located within the Beothuk park has sadly been closed due to

financial constraints following the privatization of the park. That particular

exhibit was a copy of the actual living and working conditions borne by the

loggers during the high point of the logging industry in Central Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That was a great exhibit.

MR. DEAN:

It was, yes.

The

Exploits Salmon Festival is a very popular event which has presented world-class

musical groups, as well as local talent. Currently the AND Another

Newfoundland Drama Company the Kiwanis Music Festival, now in its 52nd year,

the Gordon Pinsent Centre for Arts, the Joe Byrne Memorial Stadium and the

Classic Theatre provide popular entertainment, in addition to other private

establishments in the area.

The

town's hockey team, the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts, is one of the most

successful teams in the province and is always a great drawing card at the Joe

Byrne Memorial Stadium. The Centennial Ball Field is a consistent venue for

larger events such as the Salmon Festival; for those who enjoy the great

outdoors, there are plentiful salmon in the Exploits River attracting thousands

of anglers each year, and considerable hunting, trapping and white-water

opportunities.

Also

available to those who wish to apply are provincial licences and permits.

Throughout the whole of the Exploits District, there are thousands of privately

owned cabins and cottages. Students living in Grand Falls-Windsor are provided a

curriculum from kindergarten to grade 12, with continuing education available at

the College of the North Atlantic, as well as private schools Corona and Keyin

Tech. A government tree nursery is located at Wooddale, in addition to many

private farms which produce for local stores and their vegetable warehouses and

stands. They are also several floral nurseries and bee farms.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll

pick up this later and complete my report on the communities.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I wasn't

going to try and monopolize the proceedings of the House this morning. As I say,

I would regard that as the duty of the Opposition. But I felt constrained just

to add a little commentary to the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands who seemed

to get rather exercised in his last polemic to the House.

And I

apologize to him if I like language. I have always enjoyed language and, indeed,

one of my former high school teachers lamented the fact that I was going to soil

myself with matters of science rather than concentrate on the humanities in

I think

there are a couple of themes I'd like to pick up on from his diatribe. It's

interesting that today is the Ides of March because the term pontificating,

which he levelled at me, actually comes from the word pontiff. Everyone

assumes that actually is associated with His Holiness the Pope, but in actual

fact it predates that and it was a job assigned to one of the elected officials

in Rome, and a tradition that continued with the election of the Pope.

wasn't actually a bad word in the good old days. It meant speaking with some

kind of authority and almost a divine connection, but I can't claim the divine

connection, for sure.

I think

I'd like to pick up on the theme of hard decisions and compassion. I think,

really, to suggest that somehow we, on this side of the House, lack compassion

because we have to make hard decisions are joining too many dots. We, as I said,

inherited a situation which we did not craft, but we have to remedy. There is an

enormous fiscal challenge before this province and I would say to the Member

opposite, at the moment, we do not have an abundance of resources.

Twenty-five billion dollars went out the window. If I had that money, I would be

able to offer spousal accommodation to people with different levels of care and

there would be no constraints on the system at all. So it has to be about using

the dollars differently and getting value for money out it.

Unfortunately, the only way this couple could be reunited was for me to go and

pick somebody and say you can't go there; you actually have to leave there so I

can reunite this couple. There isn't the money in the Treasury to do this

because, not only are the cupboards bare, the previous PC crowd sold the

cupboards. There's nothing. There isn't anything there at all.

On the

point of view of compassion, I think it's very unwise for any individual to

claim some kind of insight into how others feel. They can talk about what I say,

they can talk about the arguments I use, and I have no problem with that.

There's no argument that can't be refined by debate, but I think it is the

height of arrogance of any and all kinds to assume that somehow the Member

opposite has some insights into my feelings.

Really

and honestly, I do come from a background that makes warm and fuzzy a little

difficult sometimes and my colleague, my parliamentary secretary, reminds of

this and tries to encourage me to show a face that by and large surgeons keep

hidden. I did allude to it, in actual fact, in my comments when I spoke to

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the excellent amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act to deal with young

drivers and alcohol.

There

was a famous surgeon called Leriche who is noted in vascular circles, although

he did predate the speciality, and he said that at 4 in the morning physicians

visit a graveyard, and that graveyard is those folk that they don't cry over

during the day. And I think really I would just like to leave the Member for

Mount Pearl Southlands to dwell on that concept for a moment before he accuses

anybody of lacking of any kind of feeling or possessing feelings. He is not in

any position to have any insight at all into how I or anybody else in this room

might feel.

And I

think it is the height of arrogance

AN HON. MEMBER:

Grandstanding.

MR. HAGGIE:

Grandstanding is a good

enough point of view. I wasn't going to be as uncharitable as that, but I would

let that stand because it certainly is not something he can claim any insights

into, for any reason, under any circumstances.

So I'm

going to cut my time short because I really didn't expect to speak again, but I

felt that I wanted to get that on the record for the Member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a

pleasure for me to rise again this morning to talk during Interim Supply. I'm

going to start by saying that I'm not here and I'm not going to make any

apologies for getting up in this House speaking on Interim Supply and speaking

on behalf of the residents of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

I make no apology for that,

and I don't intend to, because the people of Labrador West and the people of

every district in this province have elected their MHAs to speak on their

behalf. That's what we're here for. If the people on the opposite side don't

want to take advantage of the opportunity to speak on behalf of their residents

and on behalf of their districts, that's their problem, not mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

So I will continue to do

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Chair, the budget will be

coming and then they'll have another excuse why they won't want to speak. So

don't carry on with that. I will speak the only person in this House who can

tell me what to say or not to say is sitting in that chair that you're sitting

in, Mr. Chair. That's the person in this House that can tell me what I'm allowed

to say in debate in this House. It's the person who is sitting in that chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Chair, the last time I

got up and spoke on Interim Supply I spoke on a very important issue for the

residents of Wabush and Labrador City and that was the pensions, the pensions

that Wabush Mines and Cleveland-Cliffs left them hanging with. It's nothing

short of criminal what was done to the people of Labrador West, and especially

the people of Wabush. So I'm going to use my time here again this morning to

reiterate that. That's why I'm here and that's what they want me to do.

They

want me to speak on their behalf and they want this government to act on their

behalf. Mr. Chair, we have done that. We have done that because we have done

with the pension plan what they've asked us to do, and that's to refer

section

32 of the Pension Benefits Act to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeals for

interpretation because that's

what they want us to do.

If I

want to get up here as well and congratulate Team Gushue on their win this past

week, the House Leader of the Third Party is not going to tell me not to do it,

I can guarantee you that.

I want

to say to the people of Labrador West this morning, I will use every opportunity

in this House to get up and speak on their behalf because, as I said, that's

what they elected me to do. Now, if they want to elect me the second time,

that's their choice, but as long as I have the opportunity to do that in this

House, I will do it I will do it.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) pension issue.

MR. LETTO:

And the pension issue is

something that I've worked on for the past year and a half. The first thing I

had to do, the first day after I was sworn in this House, myself and then the

minister of Municipal Affairs and Service NL had to go to Wabush and sit down

with the pensioners and terminate a pension plan that saw them lose 25 per cent

and 21 per cent of their pension. Now, if I'm not going to come here and fight

and get up and speak on their behalf on that issue, then I'm not doing my job,

and nobody in this House is going to stop me from doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

So, Mr. Chair, I will get up

and speak again on Interim Supply, because there are a lot of things I want to

say about my district. There are a lot of good things about the District of

Labrador West. And don't forget that the District of Labrador West is probably

the single district biggest contributor to the provincial economy, to the

provincial coffers of this province, the industry that it develops.

Yes,

we've had a couple of bad years. Yes, our revenues and our contributions have

been down, but it's not our fault. We will get back to become again a

significant contributor to the provincial coffers. And we're seeing that. We're

in an iron ore industry that's at the mercy of the world markets. We're at their

mercy, and there's nothing we can do about that. There's nothing we can do.

But what

we can do as a government is help them through the tough times, help them get

through the tough times and that's what we're done, and that's what we've done

for the pensioners of Wabush. We can't guarantee them that they will get a full

pension back, but what we can do is do everything that's in our power, that's in

our jurisdiction, in our legislation, to represent them. And that's what we'll

do.

So, Mr.

Chair, there's a lot I can say. Diversification, data centres, the climate in

Labrador West you've got to use the assets and the benefits in your district,

use them to your advantage, and that's what we're doing with data centres. It's

cold in Labrador West, they tell me. I don't know if anybody on the other side

knows that, but it's cold in Labrador West. Do you know what? We use that cold

to our benefit, because it's the climate these people want to have to develop

the industry and diversify the economy. We have two data centres: one is up and

running; the second one is about to get up and running; the third one is now in

the making, and there's more to come.

Now,

they're not big employers, but they are big users of electricity. We need to

sell our electricity; I think that's what I heard the last few days. So, again,

we're contributing.

Mr.

Chair, I'm going to sit down but before I do I just want to say again, I came to

this House of Assembly; I got elected by the people. I asked the people of

Labrador West for their support so that I could come here and support them and

represent their best interest, and that's what I'm trying to do.

I don't

always do it perfectly, but that's what I'm trying to do. I'm doing my best. I

will use every opportunity in this House to do that. There's nobody on the other

side who is going to try to shut down democracy and shut down debate and tell me

to sit down when I have the opportunity to represent them. If they don't want to

do it and I noticed that the House Leader of the Third Party is snickering and

laughing at it. Well, if she doesn't want to represent her people, that's her

problem, not mine.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it

the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Deputy Chair of Committees.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Deputy Chair of the

Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to

them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

When

shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the hon.

the Government House Leader, I've been advised that as today is Dietitians Day

and the dietitians are set up just outside the House to provide healthy snacks

and nutritional advice, the group is hoping to get a photograph with MHAs. Right

after the session, we can do it in the scrum area or just at the head of the

House.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given

the hour of the day, I would ask, with the consent of my colleagues, that the

House recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

recess until 2 p.m. today, being Private Members' Day.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This

House is now in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Recess

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

welcome to our public galleries members of the Pharmacists' Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador: Dr. Alicia Wall, Vice-President; Glenda Power,

Executive Director; Richard Coombs, Board Member.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well in our public

gallery, we have several members from Dietitians Newfoundland and Labrador who

are the subject of a Ministerial Statement today.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Harbour Grace Port de Gave, Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune, Topsail Paradise, St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre

and Baie Verte Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize an outstanding event which takes place in my district every

winter. I'm referring to the Town of Harbour Grace annual Winter Carnival. This

year, the carnival ran over the weekend of February 24 to 26 and, like so many

other events in Harbour Grace, it had everything. From a day with the reptiles,

which the children loved, to a male beauty pageant that kept everybody laughing

all weekend.

The

community spirit surrounding this winter celebration is truly unique.

Volunteers, the town council and the organizing committee all roll up their

sleeves long before the first winter snow to get ready for this long weekend

celebration.

I want

to congratulate Mayor Terry Barnes and his council, along with the carnival

chairperson, Michelle Pike and her seven member organizing committee for their

tireless work. The 2017 Harbour Grace Winter Carnival was one for the ages, Mr.

Speaker. We can't wait to do it again next year.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Town of Harbour Grace on their

2017 winter carnival. It was a job well done.

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 rise

in this hon. House to extend congratulations to three very bright and dedicated

recent graduates who received $1,000 Electoral District Scholarships in November

2016 from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: from John

Watkins Academy, Ashley Loveless, from King Academy, Carey Stoodley, and from

Bay d' Espoir Academy, Julie Young.

The

district scholarship recognizes individuals who excel in their academic studies

and receive the highest marks based upon public examination results. We are very

proud of their achievement and wish them the very best of luck as they pursue

their post-secondary education.

Achieving academic excellence is an important part of preparing these fine young

adults for their future, and I know they will never forget where they came from.

We are also truly grateful to their families, their teachers, and all those

people who encouraged them to be the very best that they can be. They have

proven their tremendous work ethic and we know their dedication and great

initiative will serve them well indeed.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Ashley, Carey, and Julie. With what

they have achieved already, there is no doubt that they have very bright futures

ahead of them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Mackenzie Glynn and Katie Follett, both from the Town of

Paradise. In February, these two 16-year-old girls were on the curling team,

Team Atlantic of St. John's Curling Club that won the 2017 Newfoundland and

Labrador Under-18 Women's Curling Championship in Gander. Along with team

members Sarah Chaytor, Camille Burt and the guidance of Coach Dave Trickett,

they will now represent Newfoundland and Labrador as Team NL at the 2017

Canadian Under-18 Boys and Girls Curling Championships being held in Moncton,

New Brunswick in April.

This is

not the first time that these ladies have won. In 2016 ,

they also won the Under-18 Women's Provincial Curling Championship and

represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the Atlantic U18 Curling Championships

held in Halifax, Nova Scotia in March 2016, and they played in a bronze medal

game.

In addition to their curling accomplishments, these

young athletes volunteer as assistant coaches for the junior curling program for

children ages five to 10 years every Saturday morning at the St. John's Curling

Club while they also maintain 90-plus averages in school.

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

congratulating, not only these two ladies, but the entire team on their

successes and wish them all the very best of luck in the upcoming curling

championship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. George's Humber.

MR.

REID:

Mr.

Speaker, this past Friday I participated in a Rooting for Health event being

held at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Corner Brook.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Agriculture, working with the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, the School Milk

Foundation, and the Egg Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador celebrated

Nutrition Month in schools across the province by hosting these Rooting for

Health events.

This unique event brings together nutrition tips and

facts, a visit from local farmers and a nutritious breakfast. Farmers on site

provide interesting facts and information on their products, how they are grown

or produced, and help to dispel any associated myths. Breakfast included fresh

local eggs, milk and berries.

This is a tremendous event which ties in really well

with Nutrition Month. The role of farmers in providing healthy, safe food is

very important for both children and adults to understand. It is very fitting

that the farmers of this province be part of this event during Nutrition Month.

I ask all Members of the House to join me in

recognizing the work being done by these various groups in increasing the

knowledge about the healthy food that's produced in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Member for St. Johns Centre, I remind all Members to

kindly put your cellphones on silent, especially if you're going to be stood at

the mic as it does interfere with the sound system.

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we celebrate

Captain Caleb Kean, 90 years old. Captain Kean started his wonderful life in

Pound Cove, Bonavista Bay. At 10 years old he headed to the Labrador to fish

with his father, a schooner captain. For eight years he returned each season,

e arning

$35 for three months' work lot of fish and hard but exciting work for a young

boy.

Captain

Kean remembers Commission of Government, when people earned six cents a day and

Confederation, when folks flew brin bags outside their houses to show their

voting intention.

Off to

St. John's in 1951, he skippered the federal fishery research vessel

Investigator. Captain Kean sailed the

Atlantic Ocean for years. In 1956, he rescued a very sick cook off the

L'gar II , the first open raft to attempt a trans-Atlantic voyage. It stranded

on the Grand Banks in fog and no wind for days. Coming across them, Captain Kean

left his vessel by rowboat and removed the sick crew member of the

L'gar II , which made the crossing in 88 days a world record.

Fifty-six years later, CBC made a documentary about the encounter, reuniting the

two captains.

Happy

birthday Captain Kean, and long may your big jib draw!

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Health

care is a top concern for everyone in our province and quality primary care is

critical to improving health outcomes. Main Street Medical Clinic in Springdale

is an example of a care model that works through technology, a team-based

approach and a commitment to community engagement health care delivery is

changing.

The

clinic's addictions program, the only one of its kind in the province, ensures

an addict has access to treatment in seven days or less, no matter where they

live. Craig, the addictions coordinator, uses his insights as a former addict to

help others. In April, he will be joined by Emily, an Indigenous woman and

former addict, as his assistant.

Beyond

addictions, wellness for all is promoted through education and support. Home

some of the services they offer.

Mr.

Speaker, under the leadership of my friend and colleague, Dr. Todd Young, great

things are happening in my district. I would ask all hon. Members to join me in

recognizing Dr. Young and his staff as they continue what they do best: working

together to help others.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize March as National Nutrition Month.

The

provincial government is pleased to support Nutrition Month, in partnership with

Dietitians of Newfoundland and Labrador and community partners. The theme of

this year's campaign is Take the fight out of food. Spot the problem. Get the

facts. Seek support.

Eating

should be joyful and p