PDF Version

November 13, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 40

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

First of

all, I'd like to read a statement:

Following the passing of the private Member's resolution of October 24, 2018,

correspondence was sent to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and Rubin

Thomlinson requesting they appear before this House of Assembly to answer

questions and provide clarity on the process followed by the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards in producing investigative reports on harassment

complaints.

October 29, 2018, Rubin Thomlinson responded indicating that the lead

investigator on the file was out of the country, and that they would follow up

once he was back in the office. Given that Rubin Thomlinson was not available

immediately to appear before this House of Assembly, the House moved forward

with debate on the Code of Conduct reports to advance them in a timely manner.

Members are aware, debate on all five reports has concluded and are now disposed

of by the House.

November 9, 2018, last Friday, Rubin Thomlinson advised that it was declining

the request to appear before the House, noting three items: (

i) the request

speaks more to the process followed by the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards, who is ultimately accountable for the investigation; (ii) the

Commissioner has provided all the necessary information to assist the House in

better understanding the process; and (iii) debate on the matter has concluded.

I met

with the House Leaders today to advise of this response, it was agreed that the

matter is now closed.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, a very great honour, I'd like to welcome Constable

Tammy Madden, Constable Lindsay Dillion and Constable Heather Ellis. They will

all be recognized in a Ministerial Statement this afternoon. They are joined by

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief of Police, Joe Boland, and the Assistant

Commissioner for the RCMP in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Ches Parsons.

A great

welcome to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Baie Verte - Green Bay,

Lewisporte - Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Mount Pearl North, and

Placentia West - Bellevue.

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in

recognition of November being Diabetes Awareness month and on the eve of World

Diabetes Day, I want to highlight a beautiful and courageous three year old,

Sophie Roberts, who resides in the community of Triton along with her parents,

Jake and Jenna.

Sophie

was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of 14 months and was wearing an

insulin pump before she reached the age of two. She leads a very active life

according to her mom and they try not to restrict her too much.

Parenting a child with diabetes can be challenging. Parents Jake and Jenna live

with the constant worry, stress and responsibility of raising Sophie and

educating her about her medical issues. Children with diabetes can live a long

and healthy life.

Parents

and caregivers play an important role when children are young. Type 1 diabetes

is often referred to as an invisible disease because on the outside people live

normal lives but those who are affected, especially young children and parents,

will tell you their lives are anything but normal.

Mr.

Speaker, I respectfully ask all hon. Members to join me in supporting Sophie

Roberts and her parents, and wishing them the very best that life has to offer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize the Twillingate Volunteer Fire Department who

celebrated their 50th Anniversary on October 27.

In 1968,

following a devastating fire that destroyed the courthouse and countless

important documents, the Twillingate Fire Brigade was transformed into the

Twillingate Volunteer Fire Department.

The need

for improved equipment was paramount. In their first year, they purchased a new

500-gallon Dodge truck. Two years later, a station wagon, which served dual

purposes for the fire chief and acting as a backup ambulance for the hospital.

Since

then, with the support of the community and government, they have seen continued

progress in areas like equipment and essential training for members.

Over its

50-year history, four chiefs have served the Twillingate Volunteer Fire

Department: Chiefs Harry Cooper Jr., Fred Pearce, Dave Earle, and current

serving Chief Craig Clarke. They were presented with the Willie Cooper Memorial

Award for Dedication.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking past and present members of

the Twillingate Volunteer Fire Department on 50 years of dedicated service and

wish them safety and success in their next 50 years and beyond.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two

years ago, Rev. Gerald Gillies stood in front of his congregation and issued a

challenge. You see, there was nowhere in Gander Bay to honour those who paid the

ultimate sacrifice or the veterans from the First and Second World Wars.

On March

30, 2016, the Gander Bay Cenotaph Committee held its first meeting. Chairperson

Francis Brinson, Secretary-Treasurer David Peckford, and members: Marvin Hodder,

Thomas Peckford and Philip Francis answered the call. A site was selected and

the work began.

The

support in and around the Gander Bay region was outstanding. The committee and

supporters sold tickets on a painting of the Caribou Memorial at Beaumont-Hamel.

They accepted in-kind contributions and monetary donations.

November 11, 100 years after the guns fell silent from the Great War, the

cenotaph was unveiled. This Remembrance Day was significant for the Gander Bay

region. The ceremony drew well over 200 people. Sixty-four names printed on the

memorial were read aloud, followed by family members laying wreaths to honour

their loved ones.

Please

join me in showing our support to the Reverend and committee of the Gander Bay

region for their long-awaited memorial.

Lest we

forget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday,

November 7, I had the privilege to attend a cap and gown graduation ceremony at

O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl. All 216 graduates looked stunning as they

donned their cap and gown, putting many proud smiles on the faces of their

parents, friends and teachers.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate all of the 2018 class of

graduates of O'Donel High. Valedictorian, Nathan Pitts, delivered an excellent

speech as he captured the personalities of the graduating class and reminisced

about their time as students.

Seventy-five per cent of the 2018 graduating class graduated with either

distinction or honours, and over $45,000 in academic awards was received by very

deserving students. Teachers and parents are to be commended for their

outstanding support. Without it, no student would be able to excel; no school or

graduating class would be able to experience such success.

I would

also like to extend my congratulations to Principal Michelle Clemens as she

completes her final year of an outstanding 30-year career as an educator.

I ask

all hon. colleagues to join me in applauding the principal, staff and volunteers

of O'Donel High for organizing a very beautiful ceremony, and especially in

congratulating the graduating class of 2018.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, last month the

Burin Peninsula opened its doors to the world by welcoming global delegates as

part of the Live at Heart International Music Showcase, the first of its kind in

all of Canada.

Live at

Heart originated in Europe and was harnessed locally by the not-for-profit

Vision 360 Productions under the direction of Mike Brennan, Ben Wiseman, Barry

Stacey and Jamie Geir. Together, they provided an opportunity for musicians and

artists from our province to meet with industry representatives to develop

business skills and identify new markets. Concerts were held at a variety of

venues around the peninsula, giving the public an opportunity to hear these

musical talents.

Producers from all over the world came to hear our talent. One such producer I

met, Mr. Speaker, from Los Angeles, has produced with the likes of Eric Clapton,

Celine Dion and Katy Perry. I congratulate all of the artists who have

successful deals signed at this showcase, and most importantly I salute Vision

360 for their tenacity and desire to see this showcase become a success.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in wishing these talented artists the

very best of luck as they pursue these opportunities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we proceed with

Ministerial Statements, I would like to indicate that the representative for the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary today is the Deputy Chief, Mr. Paul Woodruff – a

great welcome to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

rise in this hon. House to recognize three outstanding police officers who were

honoured last week at the Atlantic Women in Law Enforcement Conference.

Two

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers, Constable Tammy Madden, a senior

constable in the RNC Major Crime Unit, was named Officer of the Year, and

Constable Lindsay Dillon, a senior constable with the RNC Intimate Partner

Violence Unit, received the Mentoring and Coaching Award.

Constable Madden was recognized for her excellence in leadership, community

service, mentoring and performance. Constable Dillon was honoured for her

efforts in the development of programs and policies to support women in law

enforcement.

RCMP

officer, Constable Heather Ellis, received the Bravery Award for going above and

beyond the call of duty. Now stationed at the Glovertown detachment, Constable

Ellis was commended for her actions when, in New Brunswick in 2015, she

confronted a suspect armed with a rifle.

Mr.

Speaker, these officers epitomize the crucial role of our RNC and RCMP in the

role that officers play in ensuring the safety and security of residents in this

province – women and men who do outstanding work, both on and off duty.

I ask

all hon. Members to me in congratulating these three distinguished officers on

this very well-deserved recognition.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for the

advance copy. We join the minister in congratulating the three police officers.

In earning the Officer of the Year Award, Senior Constable Tammy Madden, of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Major Crime Unit, has clearly won the respect

of her peers throughout the police forces of the Atlantic region.

Constable Lindsay Dillon is to be commended for receiving the Mentoring and

Coaching Award for her work with the RNC Intimate Partner Violence Unit.

Constable Heather Ellis, of the RCMP Glovertown detachment, is to be commended

for the courage and dedication to duty she demonstrated when she confronted a

suspect armed with a rifle while serving in New Brunswick in 2015, for which she

won the Bravery Award.

These

examples, of these three officers, will encourage more young women to consider

pursuing a career in law enforcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. I congratulate Constable Tammy Madden for being chosen RNC Officer

of the Year Award, Constable Lindsay Dillon on her Mentoring and Coaching Award,

and RCMP officer, Heather Ellis, for her Bravery Award. They are exemplary peace

officers and outstanding members of their respective services.

These

officers are leaders in their workplaces, in their communities and are positive

role models for women and girls who wish to follow them into a career in law

enforcement. Our police service is transformed when it includes more women and

people from diverse communities.

Bravo,

officers!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize International Education Week, from November 12 to 16.

International Education Week is an opportunity to

celebrate the benefits of international education and exchange worldwide. With

more than 100 countries from around the world celebrating this week, it's an

opportunity to recognize awareness and understanding of international education through a variety of

activities and events undertaken by government, educational institutions,

stakeholder groups and individuals.

International education is expansive, global and cross cultural. It's the

exchange of language, culture, ideas and a celebration of these exchanges.

The

number of international students in our province has increased significantly in

the past 10 years and their contribution to our social, to our cultural and

economic success is immeasurable. When we work together with other countries, we

all benefit.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage the participation of all individuals and institutions

interested in international education and exchange activities, including

schools, colleges and universities and organizations. They can use the Holy

Heart High School as an example, which last year saw students representing 62

countries parading with flags from their home countries. This was a great

demonstration of the growing diversity in our province.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in celebrating International Education Week. With a

world of information to explore, the opportunity for education never ends.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. International Education Week

is an excellent opportunity to highlight the great effects of investing in

education in our province. Attracting international students is one part of

addressing the need of our province to combat our shrinking student population

while, at the same time, learning from a diversified culture and the knowledge.

encourage students to get involved with the various activities and events

planned to celebrate this week. It is a great opportunity to share our language,

culture, ideas and, in return, learn the same from other jurisdictions. We all

should celebrate International Education Week.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and welcome to him to

his new, permanent position.

In an

increasingly global economy, every week is International Education Week.

International education has to be more than just the week-long festivities;

although these are very important. International education must also mean

government providing a curriculum designed to reflect the fact that in the

future our young people will have to live and work in a global economy. They

will have to be well versed in skills which will be needed in the future, such

as in IT.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador now has a stand-alone Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women, and I am honoured to have been appointed to this role.

Through

their invaluable insights, expertise, skills, values and talents, women in

Newfoundland and Labrador have traditionally been, and continue to be,

significant contributors to our communities and to our province, Mr. Speaker.

Our

government wants to encourage those contributions, and make sure women are

making them from leadership roles. That is why we made strong commitments to the

social and economic advancement of women and girls. I look forward to working

collaboratively with women's equality-seeking organizations, Indigenous groups

and organizations, community partners and stakeholders, as well as my

ministerial colleagues, to ensure our commitments are realized.

Working

together, we will build on the important work that has already taken place under

my predecessors, the Member for St. John's West and the former Member for

Windsor Lake, Mr. Speaker. We have established a Committee on Violence Against

Women and Girls, which is co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety and the President of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of

women. We have also established an internal ministers' committee to advance

issues related to ending violence and advancing women and girls.

Further,

we are in the process of implementing a mental health and addictions plan and

The Premier's Task Force on Improving

Educational Outcomes . Both initiatives work toward addressing the root

causes of violence. The Violence Prevention Initiative Action Plan is being

implemented, and we continue to work with stakeholders to take responsive

actions and effect positive, enduring change.

As I

noted, Mr. Speaker, our work to advance women in leadership also continues, and

we will soon be releasing new details about our women's leadership initiative as

part of The Way Forward .

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking past Ministers Responsible for the

Status of Women for their work, and offer thanks to the individuals and

organizations who have provided valuable insights and information to support our

efforts.

I look

forward to having the support of all Members of this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, as

I continue this important work in a dedicated, stand-alone role.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I congratulate the minister

on her appointment to Cabinet and I wish her well in her new post.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to working with the new Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women. Her role is crucial in making strides towards equality and

eliminating violence against women.

Mr.

Speaker, we've only begun to scratch the surface in regard to the amount of work

that needs to be done on the Violence Prevention Initiative. Other issues such

as pay equity, and numerous women's issues across this province really need

attention, and I truly hope that women's issues will now finally get the

attention they rightfully deserve.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. I commend government for creating a stand-alone ministry for the

Status of Women, and I congratulate the new minister.

Newfoundland and Labrador we face many crucial issues, including among the

highest rates of violence against women and girls, the largest gender wage gaps

and no legislated pay equity. Affordable child care is still a major barrier for

women in the paid labour force. We need a thorough and comprehensive

gender-based analysis applied to our provincial budgets and more.

Women's

organizations around the province have lots of experience and expertise, and it

is my hope the minister will work closely with them and learn from them to

improve the status for all women and girls in the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

My question is for the hon.

Minister of Natural Resources.

Last

week, the hon. Premier said his government has been working on a solution for

those employees that deserve to get paid for the work they've done.

Mr.

Speaker, there are over 129 non-unionized Astaldi workers who are fighting for

paycheques.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: What has occurred to direct Nalcor to pay

these employees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

a very important question. Again, as I said in this House previously, and I know

the Premier has also said, this is a very difficult time for workers of Astaldi.

Our efforts are thinking of them, and our efforts are towards ensuring they get

the pay that they deserve.

Mr.

Speaker, on October 18 – the stop-work order was issued by October 20. Payment

was made to all workers up to October 20. Since that time, we do know there have

been some additional work that needs to be paid and some additional payments

that need to be paid. We've been working to gather that information. Nalcor is

really willing and working towards getting the information from the Astaldi

payroll to make those payments.

Mr.

Speaker, obviously, there are due diligence issues at work here. We have to make

sure we are making all efforts, and there are privacy issues.

So we're

doing that, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to have this resolved very soon.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you.

These

same employees have reached out to us on the Opposition side. They indicated

that all of their payroll information was submitted to Nalcor, but Nalcor

rejected it.

I would

ask the minister: Will she intervene and ensure these workers will be paid?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy that the workers of Astaldi have reached out to all avenues, and I know

this weekend I was speaking with a number of them as well. As early as this

morning, I was speaking with both Nalcor and some of these workers, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor

is working towards getting the information that it requires. There is a due

diligence to make sure that they have the right information to make the payroll

submissions through ADP, and that is ongoing. We're hoping to have this resolved

as soon as possible, but there is a lot of contact between Nalcor and Astaldi's

employers and employees, as well as with the payroll company to do just that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Representatives of these same

129 non-unionized employees have been asking for a meeting with the Premier.

I ask

the minister: Have appropriate arrangements been made for that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did

receive an email over the weekend requesting a meeting. I followed up with the

person who is requesting the meeting to find some time in the next 24 hours to

do just that. In the meantime, we didn't wait for a meeting, Mr. Speaker. We've

been on this issue. We've been speaking with Nalcor. Nalcor's been working with

Astaldi's payroll company, ADP, to get this done, and I know that Nalcor was

speaking with one of the representatives today. I had made arrangements to do

that.

So, Mr.

Speaker, things are happening, things are working. And we will have a meeting in

a very short while, but I didn't want to wait until we had a meeting. We

actioned it immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for

that.

According to the minister, the surety paid the benefit funds for September.

Has the

surety paid the October benefits?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

an important question, and I thank the Member opposite for it. The surety is,

what I'm going to call, the holder of the funds. There is $400 million that was

put in place, of course, with the contract. A surety is the one that would have

to ensure that these payments are being made.

July and

August, of course – Trades NL put in a lien for July and August. The surety did

pay for September, but I'll follow up and see if funds have been received for

October and I'll address this House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

If I understand the minister

correctly, she's indicated she's waiting on the surety to pay non-unionized

workers, yet Nalcor has paid unionized workers before the surety paid Astaldi's

bill.

May I

ask the minister why didn't these workers get paid at the same time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid

to advise the House that that is incorrect. As I said earlier, all workers have

been paid up to October 20. Those who stayed on for a few days or, in some

cases, even longer than a week afterwards, that's what we're working on paying

now and some of the back pay. I understand from speaking with some of the

workers, they are looking for some of the pay in lieu of vacation, that type of

thing.

Nalcor

is working with the payroll company, Astaldi's payroll company, to get the

information that is required. There are privacy issues here at play as well, Mr.

Speaker. We have to ensure that, but I can assure this House the work is being

done to do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Are the pension and benefit

funds now fully paid for TradesNL?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

answered that in the previous question, but I'm happy to answer that again. As I

said, TradesNL, in July and August, put a lien on this very issue of the

benefits and pensions. In September, the surety stepped in and paid. I'm happy

to advise as soon as I get the information for October – I haven't been advised

yet if the surety has already paid for October, but I will advise this House,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

My question is for the

Minister of TCII: Can the minister guarantee this House that Health Canada will

ensure there is no criminal activity by companies doing business or investing in

the cannabis industry in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly can assure that that is the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Is it then the minister's

position that no due diligence is required whatsoever of the provincial

government to ensure there is no criminal activity by investors in this

province's cannabis industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite has only constantly raised concerns about the business community and

the investments that's being made to grow the economy here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. What I will say is that Health Canada is responsible for providing

production licences. There are appropriate health checks and balances and

security checks and all sorts of protocols that must be followed when it comes

to any deal that is done. If they are a landlord to a property that they do not

own, then there needs to be documentation provided by the land owner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It's been two weeks since the

Minister of Finance said he was going to find out the names of the shareholders

in the numbered company that owns the land leased to Canopy Growth. Once again,

I ask the Minister of Finance, has he determined who owns this company.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

any company that registers in Newfoundland and Labrador, they register through

the Registry of Companies and Deeds. The Member opposite, as a lawyer in his

professional career, would know this and would know the basics of business law

and contract law. He may have, in his career, registered people throughout this

whole process.

What

happens is that anybody who wants to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador

that registers a company, puts that forward, puts that documentation forward.

The directors are listed for any company, whether they are numbered or

unnumbered, whatever the trading name is. These are people who are doing

business right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What the

Member opposite is doing is casting aspersions on our business community that's

doing business in Newfoundland –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if

the minister realizes that the sole director in this numbered company is a

lawyer and the identity of the shareholders, or anyone in ownership beyond that

is invisible, impenetrable.

Minister, have you or your officials met with representatives of the numbered

company that owns the land because, if you did, you might be able to enlighten

the Minister of Finance?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, what we are

doing here in Newfoundland and Labrador is we are growing an industry right here

when it comes to cannabis. What we've done is we've taken an approach where

we've had no licensed facilities. Now, we will have two.

I would

like to see more facilities here that are going to be creating jobs and growing

the economy right here. These are important. The jobs that are being created in

Western Newfoundland and Labrador are $54,000 annual year salary jobs. These are

very important; 120 production jobs. These are the types of things that the

Member opposite certainly doesn't support.

Since

we've started The Way Forward , job

creation has a combined economic activity of $49 billion upon completion. That's

significant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works: What is

the current process, Minister, for the disposition of surplus lands in your

department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

process is a public, transparent process, Mr. Speaker. Any time we're getting

ready to divest of any property such as old buildings or land, we will go out to

an RFP process. Unless, in some cases, what you will find is when the land is

expropriated in years past, we go back to the original owner and have a

conversation. But it is a transparent process.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Is this surplus land sold at market value?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

The answer to the question,

Mr. Speaker, is absolutely. Any time we sell anything in this province, whether

it's an asset of government, we always make sure that we get the best value for

taxpayers. In lots of cases, there are a lot of factors go into that – if it's

land that needs to be remediated, if it's a property that needs to be

remediated, and so forth. But the reality is we always look to get the most for

taxpayers.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, have you or your officials in the Department of Transportation and

Works met with representatives of the numbered company that owns the land that

Canopy Growth is leasing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, my understanding is that was not Crown land, I think that was private

land, and that would mean there'd be no reason for people in Transportation and

Works to meet with land that's not in the portfolio of Transportation and Works.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can you

confirm, Minister, that last fall officials in the Department of Transportation

and Works were directed to sell a significant parcel of land on Mews Place in

St. John's for $1?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know

where the Member was doing his research this weekend. I have never seen anything

in the department with reference to a parcel of land on Mews Place. It is my

understanding that we do own a parcel of land on Mews Place. It's actually a

catch basin, primarily, for the Team Gushue Highway.

So, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to a piece of land that TW may have in its inventory, I'm

not familiar that we would have tried to sell that land. But if he knows

somebody that's interested in buying that land for a fair market value, please

reach out to the department.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

advice, the minister needs to go and do some more checking.

Minister, was this proposed, sweet deal related to a company who wanted to get

involved in the cannabis industry in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, unlike the

Members opposite who go out and expropriate land on a whim and do things on a

whim, we do not do that. We have lots of land in our inventory as a province,

and we'll always look for the best value for taxpayers in selling that land.

But I'm

not familiar with anything the Member is referring to with regard of a

sweetheart deal. If this government or this department enters into a contract or

a negotiation with somebody, we enter in on a fair market value.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister will he table a list of all surplus real property that the

Department of Transportation and Works has disposed of since December 1, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

It's not something I have in

my binder, Mr. Speaker, but it's something I have no problem tabling.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

Minister of Health update this House if any improvements have been made in

regard to dysfunctional issues related to the past Health Research Ethics

Authority?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to say that there have been several changes, both in the Health Research

Ethics Authority, and the boards. Principally, we have now been able to increase

their capacities, such that there is a committee of ethics bodies, who will now

be able to look, specifically, at genetics research, rather than having that

shared with other tasks.

We have

increased the capacity of the staff of the Health Research Ethics Authority, and

we have been working collaboratively with a variety of industry players. The

atmosphere has completely changed since the earlier part of this year, I'm

pleased to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

minister reassure the people of this province, and those in the health research

industry, that the latest experience in the past that have had an impact in

medical research will be improved?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, to

elaborate further in my previous answer, we have brought in experts in the Lean

methodology, to help with the HREA and the HREB process, and I am informed that

they have identified multiple steps that can be removed with advantage, and no

deleterious effects to the process.

We are

hopeful that the timelines that are listed will actually now become totally

realistic, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too,

and I know people in industry are hopeful that the research gets moved in a

timely fashion and in the right mode possible.

Minister, when did you become aware of concerns of the board chair of Labrador

Health?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue came to my attention shortly before we made the announcement, through

Labrador-Grenfell, that there would be an investigation.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Who made

the decision to suspend the board chair?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

board chair was asked to abstain from duties related to his position, as chair,

or as a trustee of the board, pending the outcome of an investigation.

This is

standard procedure on the Labrador-Grenfell's respectful workplace policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister provide the details about what process he will be using to investigate

the allegations against the chair?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Labrador-Grenfell's respectful workplace policy is a matter of public record.

It's available on their website. If the Member opposite, or his researcher, has

some difficulty, I'd be happy to provide them with a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Well, I ask the minister.

Will you share who will be involved in this process? Because we know there are

times when you get involved in things, or your officials, and there are times

when you choose not to. We'd like to know what process will be used here to

ensure that this is done fairly and with due diligence.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

process will be that of Labrador-Grenfell's respectful workplace policy. It is

very clearly outlined. It's available on a public website and, as I say, if the

Member opposite has some difficulty, I can always provide him with a copy.

What

will not happen, Mr. Speaker, is government or my department will not be

interfering in the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct

this to the Minister of Education. Minister, it has come to our attention that

there are a number of positions in the department that have been filled without

advertising or competition, such as the director and a number of specialists

positions, to note a few.

Can the

minister verify whether or not this is happening in his department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my

knowledge, I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Well, Mr. Speaker, can I ask

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Can I ask the minister if he

would go back and check that out? Because we have very serious concerns about

information being sent to us. We do ask that you look into that for this House,

please.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

I just wonder if that's a

question or a statement. But, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do and will because

obviously that's not the way this government works. I'm not too sure how things

have gone on before, but I can assure you that we follow the proper practices.

If, in fact, that's the case, I will certainly check into that, Mr. Speaker, not

a problem – not a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

2017-2018 annual report for the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises

indicates that no applications were evaluated.

Can the

minister inform this House why no applications were evaluated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

Member opposite for the question. When it comes to the EDGE program, we

certainly have a program in our province that allows for investment attraction,

such as working in partnership with municipalities for land to become available,

different forms of taxes and incentives. What I can say is that this was a

program that certainly wasn't supported by the previous administration and it's

seen ineffective activity over the last little while, unfortunately.

We have

seen in the past, when it was first initiated, how you have organizations like

Dynamic Air Shelters on the Burin Peninsula doing well and one of our

Accelerated Growth companies. We have a whole mix of programs to attract and

grow business in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the EDGE program gives tax incentives, access to Crown land and other

supports to businesses who will set up with at least 10 permanent employees, and

who will create economy growth.

I ask

the minister: Why did you feel the need to set up a new agreement for Canopy

Growth and Biome Grow, instead of evaluating them through this

already-established tax credit program, which is open and accountable?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

because we want taxation and we want returns here to our province in the

immediate. It's very, very important to look at the types of deals that we've

been doing here in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that we have greatest

benefit and economic return.

It was

just the Member opposite for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi who basically raised

the issue of 500 jobs being created because we extended a loan to a company.

That company is creating 500 jobs here in St. John's. We only provided $250,000

in training. We do not have to provide these types of incentives. When we can

attract business to grow the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are

going to do so. We are going to get the best deals for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, not giveaways like they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

Tuesday, the Finance Minister said that economic indicators are showing that our

economy is improving. Yet, this government's economic diversification program

did not evaluate any recipients in 2017-2018. In fact, from the annual reports,

it appears that this Liberal government has not chosen any recipients.

I ask

this minister: Is this true?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, we're very much

open for business, and this is why we created the Innovation and Business

Investment Corporation. We've done hundreds of applications when it comes to

support all across Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of helping businesses be

more productive, more competitive, grow and compete in export, whether it be on

the Burin Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula, the

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune area as well. We've made investments in her district,

significant investments when it comes to supporting aquaculture and the supply

and service, and continuing to support it.

The EDGE

program is one tool, one financial mechanism that we have within the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador. Taking a whole-of-government approach, we have a

lot of supports to grow business and it's working; $49 billion in economic

activity since The Way Forward

started, once projects are complete.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And the

EDGE, I certainly can attest, has many benefits and it can be a triple edge at

both the federal and municipal levels if they engage as well, but companies are

not availing of this program under the Liberal government.

I ask

the minister: What are you going to do to ensure that more companies can benefit

from this program which again, I would say, is open, accountable and transparent

to the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, what the Member

opposite and the former administration – which they didn't support the EDGE

program, by the way. I can't believe she's advocating for free taxation. It's a

double edge, because you get federal tax breaks and you get provincial tax

breaks.

So that

means she's advocating for the province to pay for these companies, not only the

provincial portion of their tax but the federal portion as well, rather than

being able to do business deals that attract jobs and create economic growth

without the EDGE program, is far better than using a program where we have to

pay both levels of taxation for up to 15 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South for a final question, please.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Budget

2018 referenced a low carbon economy fund to be cost-shared with the federal

government; but, again, there were no details.

Now that

your new tax has been announced, can you provide details on the low carbon

economy fund?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

I thank the hon. Member for

the question, and only too proud to get up and answer the work that's been done

by the past ministers of Environment on this very important issue.

Mr.

Speaker, we've put in place a carbon plan that protects the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Our other choice was to be imposed upon by the

federal government, which would've been much worse. But we took the high road,

we were very proactive and we put in place a carbon plan that meets the needs of

industry, meets the needs of government and meets the needs of the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tax

breaks to Canopy and to Biome amount to $95 million in giveaways, funding to

enterprises controlled by large multinational corporations – $95 million, Mr.

Speaker.

If we

were to tax these firms at the rate they should be taxed at, and which they

certainly can afford, we could use that money for so many other things that

could help people. Our province is cash strapped.

I ask

the Premier: How much more of the people's money is he going to give away to

rich multinationals for recreational cannabis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I wish the

Leader of the Third Party actually came out to St. George's for the announcement

and heard from the president, Dave Callahan, and the CEO of the company, saying

they would have considered coming to Newfoundland and Labrador but they would

definitely not be here at the scale, the jobs that would have been created. They

would have maybe looked at an 18,000 square foot facility versus a 168,000

square foot facility being invested for the long term, creating those jobs. That

value to the economy is going to create $54,000 a year jobs. We're having $6.5

million in annual salaries.

This is

how you create economic development in a region. You have jobs, you have

salaries, you develop a supply chain. We are not putting a dollar into this

company. There is no giveaway here. These people are paying their own way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

Order,

please!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, what a

distortion of the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Ninety-five million dollars –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Ninety-five million dollars

is a huge number. It could go a long way towards creating jobs. By comparison,

Mr. Speaker, government is spending only about $32 million, or a third of this

amount of money, on forestry. Only about $19 million, or 20 per cent, on

fisheries and agriculture, and a measly $17 million, or 18 per cent, on

agrifoods.

I ask

the Premier: Why didn't he use this $95 million to create more jobs in

enterprises in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, a fictitious

number from the Leader of the NDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

We are putting zero dollars

into this. So this $95 million is something that she's creating and putting out

there. She knows the difference, she absolutely does.

What

would happen, Mr. Speaker, is that we've had no production here. What we're

doing is we are having production and we are creating jobs here in Newfoundland

and Labrador. That's going to return to the Treasury profits and create more

opportunity in rural Newfoundland, and in the City of St. John's, which she

represents.

Would

she rather have no jobs and just have importation? Because I believe the NDP

would rather have the lowest-possible cost and benefit to the economy of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's not what this government is about, Mr.

Speaker.

She

complained about having 500 jobs that pay more than $15 an hour –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has

been well-proven that investments in child care are good for the economy. People

are hired, money is spent in local businesses, mothers go back to work and

government gets more tax revenue.

I ask

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: Why would government

not have invested some of the cannabis tax giveaway money – which is $95

million, Mr. Speaker – in a universal and affordable child care program?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

– and no question, investing in childhood and early childhood education is

important, it is critical. We've made significant benefits, and so has the

minister. But I can't let it go, for her, Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, talking

about how $95 million in tax breaks. It does not exist.

When it

comes to every investment that happens in Newfoundland and Labrador in the

cannabis industry, you are going to see more job activity, more economic

development and more benefits returned to our Treasury so that we can continue

to invest in early childhood education and we can continue to do more for our

economy and social programs because it's very important to have a balanced

economy. You have to create the jobs and grow the economy and invest in social

supports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

suggest to the minister that he read his own statements and add up 40 and 55.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

Given that we are hearing

about businesses waiting far too long for permits, about documents being mislaid

and other problems related to a lack of staff at Service NL, I ask the minister:

Will she immediately look into issues that are hurting entrepreneurs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL for a quick response, please.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the

Member opposite that we work diligently in Service NL, and every issue that is

brought to our attention is addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with

section 113 of the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 , I hereby table the 2017-18

annual report on the administration of the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Speaker,

the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS

14 mineral commodities are produced or mined in the province including iron,

nickel, copper, cobalt and gold; and

WHEREAS

the mining industry in 2018 is expected to employee 4,800 people (excluding

construction) throughout Newfoundland and Labrador with $48 million in

exploration expenditures and $3 billion in mineral shipments are forecasted; and

WHEREAS

the growth and diversification of the mining industry will provide meaningful

contribution to a more diverse workforce by doubling the current number of women

employed and by providing meaningful opportunities to rural areas of our

province; and

WHEREAS

by 2030 the provincial government envisions five new mines, sustainable direct

employment of more than 6,200 people in operations, and doubling our annual

exploration expenditures to $100 million; and

WHEREAS

to be successful the government will focus on being competitive, with clear and

efficient regulatory processes; advancing targeted public geoscience, marketing

and education; promoting effective Indigenous and community engagement; and

pursuing innovation and emerging technologies;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador in its plan for growth in the mining industry of our

province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution just entered by the Member

for Baie Verte - Springdale will be the one debated tomorrow.

Further,

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move that the Member for the District of

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave be appointed Deputy Chair of Committees for the

remainder of the 48th General Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

During

Question Period the Member opposite asked, had the surety made payments for the

pension and benefits for the month of October. That payment is not due until

mid-month and we'll know at that point.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further answers to questions

for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

the Bay d'Espoir Highway, and its branch roads, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364 and 365

have become overgrown with very dangerous roadside alder growth; and

WHEREAS

the Coast of Bays region is a very busy area with a high volume of industrial

traffic for aquaculture, the fishery and hydroelectricity; and

WHEREAS

the region has a transient workforce that requires workers to travel the highway

at early morning hours and late at night, often in foggy, dangerous weather

conditions with no cell coverage; and

WHEREAS

there have been weekly incidents of moose accidents in the region this year, and

some with the potential to be very serious; and

WHEREAS

all residents are very concerned and worried to drive the highway due to a fear

of a moose accident; and

WHEREAS

every effort should and must be made to protect the safety of residents and

reduce unnecessary road hazards for travellers;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows.

Mr.

Speaker, I have here another petition. I brought back almost a suitcase full

this time, because this issue is of very grave concern. And it's not something

to laugh at, I say to people across the way. We worry for our lives. We risk our

lives every time we get in a car to travel that road because of alder growth,

and it is absolutely terrible. You're driving along, you can reach out and touch

the alders. The moose is coming at a full pace and he's jumping out right in

front of you. If you're a good defensive driver you're able to escape it, but

it's only a matter of time before we have a very fatal accident.

We've

raised this in the House before. I will continue to raise it until such time as

the Liberal government recognizes there is a need for brush clearing in the

Coast of Bays. It's an expedient need. There was some work that was supposed to

be done in past years, that was cancelled.

The

residents of the area are just hoping that the Liberal government recognizes

that the Coast of Bays region is as deserving of brush clearing as any other

district in the province. It needs to be done expeditiously because our lives

are at stake. Our ambulances travel this route; our workers travel this route.

We need brush clearing immediately.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

listening to the Member opposite, you would believe that trees only grow on a

Liberal watch. The reality is, no matter what the government is, whether it's

Liberal or PC or NDP, trees are going to grow.

We have

an issue in this province with brush clearing, absolutely. We recognize that. We

commit $2 million each year to brush clearing. We work with groups like SOPAC to

ensure public awareness, because that's another important part.

The

Member opposite talks about brush cutting in her specific district. There was

brush cutting. There was an allocation in 2017. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we have

10,000 kilometres of roads in this province, and for us to get around and get

the work done – we try and do it in as big allots as possible, so we can get the

best value for taxpayers' money.

The

recommendations come in from our field staff and we go out and do what we can to

do the amount of brush clearing that we can, but it's also important that

motorists are aware of their surroundings. That's why we work with groups like

SOPAC, and we'll continue to do so.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

reasons for the petition that I am presenting: Our licensed child care system is

a patchwork of private for-profit centres, 70 per cent of all centres,

non-profit community-based centres and family daycare, plus a small number of

education and workplace-based centres. It is nowhere near meeting the child care

needs in our province.

Affordable, licensed child care is often in short supply in rural parts of the

province. Even in St. John's, there are long wait-lists for quality child care

programs. Child care programs have both social and financial benefits for

society. Studies show that high-quality child care and early childhood education

programs result in better cognitive, language and numeracy skills. They help

economically disadvantaged children transition to school on the same level as

other children.

For

every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50 to

$2.78. Many studies, including TD Economics, have come up with these numbers.

Investing in child care creates jobs; $1 million invested in child care would

create 40 jobs, more than in any other sector.

gender-based analysis of the provincial budget would have indicated the need for

a public child care program as a key way to close the wage gap between women and

men in this province.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly. We call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take

immediate steps to put in place a plan for a gradual transition to a universal

regulated and publicly funded and fully accessible child care and after school

care program.

I'm very

pleased to present this petition, Mr. Speaker. For the last couple of years

we've watched this government – they've been in now, actually, for three years –

do bandage treatment of our needs with regard to child care. We do not have a

full child care program. We have so many children; a majority who cannot get

into child care seats.

We have

government in the past couple of budgets, as I said, doing bandage treatment.

Putting some money into the Operating Grant Program, which they have to do,

putting money into the Child Care Services Subsidy Program. Bits and pieces, Mr.

Speaker, the program is bits and pieces, and the way in which the government has

been treating it is bits and pieces. What we need is a plan for this government

to start the process towards a full child care program in this province so that

every child who is eligible can get a seat.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response,

please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

some exception to what the hon. Member is talking about opposite when she talks

about a band-aid process. I take exception to that.

recognize there are challenges, and we have been doing a significant amount to

improve those challenges, but I can assure the Member opposite, it is not

band-aid. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we're ahead of target for new and

projected spaces through the Child Care Capacity Initiative with 425 new spaces

since April 1, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, in 2015, the net family income threshold for families was $27,000. In

our last budget we increased it to $32,000, and increased it further to $35,000.

It is anticipated that this will provide an additional 100 families with a full

subsidy – 100 more families.

So, Mr.

Speaker, to get up on the opposite side and talk about band-aid services, I take

exception to that, because we're not doing that. We're putting a plan in place.

We will increase capacity for child care within this province. We've done a

significant amount of work. We will continue to do that as we are mandated to

do, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Member opposite that we are not doing band-aid service and we're

going to have full implementation to the best possible resources we have, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada, and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth, and service sector employees, are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many

food items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation;

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, here we are once again, we see that Common Front had a press conference

today where they talked about the need for a $15 an hour minimum wage, and all

the research backs this up. It only makes sense.

What we

have here is that we have labour, small businesses, activists who are pushing,

pushing, pushing government to do the right thing. And as we see, government is

not a leader on this. They're far behind what's happening in other parts of

Canada, what's happening out in civil society. Civil society is saying this is

necessary; it's good for the economy.

I'm not

so sure, Mr. Speaker, when we look at our province at $11.15 an hour, what the –

a full-time minimum wage worker makes $23,192 a year. That's what they make.

It's not much more than the low income cut-off right now in St. John's, which is

$20,952.

Mr.

Speaker, you have people working full-time and if they have children and if they

have to rent a place, a decent, safe place to live with their children, they're

living way below poverty. It's simply not possible. Or if they have to pay

over-the-counter drugs or if, for the adult, they have to pay their own dental

bills, it's simply not possible to even have the bare necessities in life

working for $11.15 an hour.

Where's

the justice in working full-time and living in poverty?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I take great

exception to the hon. Member for St. John's Centre. We've done extensive

consultations on minimum wage; we've tied it to the national CPI. We're not an

outlier with the Atlantic provinces; we sit within the mix. Obviously, we want

to be better; that's why we set it up so that we're going to be tying it to the

national CPI.

That's

what the consultations have done, that's what we've worked for and that's what

we're prepared to do as a government right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation increases, unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities

Board.

Once the

Muskrat Falls Projects comes online, these rates are predicted to further

increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our

province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to

mitigate rates, they've provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to do

so.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the potential

options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal

with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to

the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, today I have petitions from the areas here around Campbellton, Norris

Arm, Lewisporte, Embree, Michael's Harbour, Brown's Arm, Stanhope and so on.

There are a number of different areas in that area.

So, Mr.

Speaker, this continues to point out that there are a lot of people that are

concerned about the power rates. Again, I'm not going to get into how we got to

this point in time, and that's why we have a Muskrat Falls Inquiry, but people

are worried. While government has indicated that they are working on solutions –

which is great; I'm really glad to hear that. People are just not satisfied to

simply hear we're working on it. They want to see what the plan is, going

forward, to deal with this problem.

I also

would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact, for anyone who may be listening –

to all Members of the House – that Newfoundland Power currently has its annual

application before the PUB. People have until this Friday, if they want to make

a presentation to the PUB, and the following Friday, you can email the PUB with

your concerns.

Part of

this rate application is for Newfoundland Power to have the ability to go from

an 8.5 annual return on investment to 9.5 per cent return on investment. Last

year, they made over $40 million in net profits – $40 million in net profits and

now they want the ability to make even more at a time when we are struggling as

a province and people are concerned about power rates. This application is

totally unacceptable and I certainly encourage the general public and all

Members of this House to reach out to the PUB and encourage their constituents

to do likewise, to say no to this increase.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of

Public Health, Bill 37, and I further move that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of

Public Health, Bill 37, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An

Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health,” carried. (Bill

37)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Protection And Promotion Of Public Health. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of

Public Bodies, Bill 38, and I further move that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements

Of Public Bodies, Bill 38, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a

bill, “An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies,” carried.

(Bill 38).

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from

the Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill

12,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Intimate Images be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and second that

Bill 12 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of Intimate Images.”

(Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

very proud today to be able to stand in this House and speak to Bill 12, which

is

An Act Respecting the Protection of Intimate Images. This is certainly one of

those pieces of legislation that I don't think people in 2003, 15 years ago,

would have sat here and contemplated debating legislation of this type. This is

a piece of legislation that is evidence of technological change, change in

society. It's just something that's come with evolution. Again, I think this is

a very positive bill dealing with a very negative subject.

The

first thing I'd like to do – and this is prior to talking about the substance of

the bill and getting into the genesis of it and how we started it and what we

thought about – is I want to give thanks to a few people in the department that

have been working on this piece of legislation. People like Megan Collins, Chad

Blundon, Kendra Wright. People like Jennifer Mercer and Heather Jacobs.

apologize if I've missed a few more that have been a part of this; but it's

amazing, when we talk about the legislative process, we stand up here and we

debate bills and it's funny because people talk about the finished product –

nobody wants to see the sausage being made. You only want the finished product,

but the fact is that the process that has led us to this piece of legislation,

the internal workings here, is something that I've very much been a part of and

very much enjoyed.

I enjoy

that process in general when we talk about law making. I have to tell you – and

I'll talk a little bit about how this started, how this came about and what led

us to being here today debating on second reading this piece of legislation.

These people that I just mentioned are people that work behind the scenes. You

probably don't see them. Many people don't know them, but I got to tell you the

work that they do and the work that they've done, not just on this piece of

legislation but on so many, really, it's thankless work sometimes but I want to

thank them now publicly for what they've done.

This

morning we had a press conference where we did a media briefing and a technical

briefing. It's people like Chad and Kendra that sat at the table today and

explained it to the media, and that's so important because it's these people,

the media, that will take this and report this. One of the big things I

mentioned in our press conference today when we speak about this is the need for

education, not just when it comes to this topic and this subject but when it

comes to this particular piece of legislation, which is designed to combat what

I really think is unfortunately a plague that has come with the advent of this

particular technology.

I want

to thank those individuals and certainly they have been available to work with

the Opposition and to brief the Opposition. I appreciate that. I'll do my best,

with their guidance, during the Committee phase of this debate where we get a

chance to ask a lot of questions. I can tell you after having heard – the media

did a really good job during the technical briefing of asking a lot of

questions, practical questions: How does this work? What if you had this

hypothetical or that hypothetical? So I think that's a positive thing.

before I get into how it came about, I want to talk about the bill itself. This

bill will allow a person, whose intimate image was distributed without consent,

to commence an action against the person who distributed the intimate image, and

creates civil remedies to deter, prevent and respond to the harms of

non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

So, what

we know now, with technology, with – again, I try not to date myself. I don't

think I'm getting that old, but I can still remember getting my first cellphone.

I can remember getting my first one that actually had a camera on it. We've

moved forward through time. We had digital cameras, and now we get to the point

where what we have sitting here in our hands, every waking moment of our lives

now, are really mini computers. And one thing, throughout time, is that we've

always had the creation of intimate images which, again, I don't think needs

description. I think people get what we're talking about. It's the act of

creating a picture or a recording, and the description is in the legislation,

between two consenting adults.

So what

we have now, especially with the advent of this technology, is we have more

means by which to create imagery and to distribute imagery. You think about the

old days – and again, I'm saying old days, that might be an insult to some of my

colleagues – but when you think about the devices that we had before, the

distribution part was quite difficult, and even the creation aspect was

difficult.

But now

with this technology, and I tell you what – I'll get a bit into this later on,

which is one of the big reasons that we're doing this, is the fact that it's not

just adults that have this, it's our kids. Our kids have access to this

technology. Every child is going around with the phone, with the device, and

that's one of the reasons that I think we need a piece of legislation like this.

So the

purpose behind this is to deter and to prevent and to create a means by which

someone who has had one of their intimate images, without consent, shared by

another individual. It's a pretty simple concept. People have these images, they

shared these images – and again, I apologize, Mr. Speaker, because I don't have

any prepared notes. My goal is to provide some insight on to how we got here.

But I

about this, said: Well, an easy solution to that is don't create the image. And

do you know what? That's a pretty simple thing to say, unfortunately, to this.

In many cases, it's blaming the person. That's what we're trying to get away

from.

We're

dealing with reality, and the reality is that we have the creation of imagery

between consenting adults, and then what's happening is that one person, for

whatever reasons – usually negative – and I'll say, usually, because there are,

unfortunately, cases where I don't think people fully realize – and I'm talking

about young people – what they're doing. It may not be for mal-intent,

but they do it, especially amongst adults. You're sharing that image of someone

and it's for negative purposes, hurtful purposes and painful purposes.

The terminology that's commonly associated with this is

revenge porn. You're taking an image of somebody that was given to you with

consent, between consenting people, and just the terminology, intimate, it's

people – very privately. And for whatever reason, you take that image and you're

going to share it just to hurt that person.

We're creating (inaudible) the fact is that's criminal.

There's a criminal offence – I believe it's

section 162 of the code; 162.1,

maybe. That's a criminal offence. We're not dealing with the fact, it is

something to say you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't do that. That's fine, but

the reality is it's happening. I got to tell you what, we have these individuals

– you only have to talk to someone who's had this done to them to realize the

pain and the hurt.

It's not just embarrassment; this leads to life-altering

circumstances. And it's done usually for a negative reason. Somebody is upset.

They might be upset for the end of a relationship; might be upset for any kind

of reason. Who knows what the reason is? None of them are good. There is

literally no reason to do this. But the fact is that it does happen. So what

we're dealing with is the non-consensual distribution to a person or to other

people of an image of another individual. Without consent, it does not and

should not happen.

So what we've created here is a means by which the person

who had their image shared – even though there's a

Criminal Code offence for this – now they have a civil remedy where

they can take action, commonly referred to as a lawsuit. They can sue, launch an

action against that individual and there are various repercussions that can come

out of it, whether it's financial damages, penalties, the removal of the image

from the Internet and any other order that a judge sees fit .

So I'm

going to get into the act now in a second and talk about it, but I also want to

thank some people out in the community now. When you think about something like

Twitter, you know what, it's hard sometimes, especially being a politician, to

see the positive side of it. It really has opened up, I think, some negative

rabbit holes, and you only have to check it out every day to see that sometimes

it's just a cesspool.

But

platforms. Without getting into all of them, because that's not what this debate

is about, I actually had an individual who is a lawyer out there, and I'm going

to give credit where credit is due. It's an individual – he's a practising

lawyer named Geoff Budden. Geoff Budden reached out to me, and we started a

conversation on this topic, right.

really goes to show how just sometimes reaching out to people can lead to this.

We're in the House debating a piece of legislation that's going to help people,

and it's because of someone like Geoff Budden, for whatever reason, I never got

into his interest in it or if he had actually dealt with it, but he talked

about, you know, what do you think about this, pointed to other jurisdictions.

That

started a chain reaction where I started looking into it. I started researching

it and I brought it to my team. And we sat down, the executive of JPS – I always

like to call it the Justice league. We sat down, we talked about it. And that

led to, you know what, jurisdictional scans and led to research; that led to

drafting, led to phone calls, led to a lot of work.

I was

going through scans of every jurisdiction, and on breakdowns of their

legislation, what ours should look like, why should we do this, why should we

not do that. That led to, again, reaching out to other groups, advocates

outside, looking to other jurisdictions to see how the jurisprudence has worked

out there.

Nova

Scotia, particularly, has a cyber-bullying piece of legislation. They've gone

really far. And one of the tragedies they've dealt with was the loss of a young

person, Rehtaeh Parsons, and I don't need to talk about that story but it's just

a brutally sad story, and this was one of the issues that was tied up in that

amongst others. Her mom has actually been to this province, has spoken out, has

taken that tragedy and turned it into, hopefully, something positive and

cautionary for others, and I commend her for that.

that's what led to this piece of legislation. I also point out there's an

associate with Mr. Budden's firm, Allison Conway, that's spoken a lot about

this. So we reached out then to the Status of Women, to PLIAN, to the Sexual

Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre, our partners. We're working with them all

the time and trying to figure out, you know, what do you think about this,

ideas, solutions, suggestions?

Again,

we reached out to the statutory office of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner

who came back with some suggestions, which have been implemented into this bill.

Obviously, when you're talking about an issue like this and legislation of this,

it definitely, obviously, has a privacy and a personal information aspect to it.

Mr.

Molloy looked it over, came back with some comments. We implemented some of the

comments into this. That's what has lead us to this piece of legislation, which

we announced back in the spring, that it was our intent to do it. We had to do a

lot of work, and that's why – we had hoped to have it ready for the spring but,

you know what, I always say it's better to do something right than just to do it

quick. So we have it here and I think it's the right mix.

When you

get into the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, it's not huge in actual size. I wouldn't

say it's not substantive, it certainly is. The first

section we just deal with

the

definitions, where it gets right into what an intimate image actually is, “a

visual recording of a person made by any means, including a photograph, film or

video recording.” And it lists the rest of the definition of what an intimate

image is.

Then

section 4 is where we get into it's an action. “It is a tort for a person to

distribute an intimate image of another person without the other person's

consent.” That lays it out, boom, there is the wrongdoing, and that is laid out

section 4.

I'm

going to move into

section 5. There are some really important parts here that I

think are noteworthy.

Section 5 is: “An action for the non-consensual

distribution of an intimate image may be commenced without proof of damage.”

That's really important.

The fact

is that when we talk about civil litigation – and, certainly, I'm not talking

for the benefit of the Leader of the Official Opposition. There's nobody in this

room that's going to talk more about civil litigation than the Member opposite.

He has spent a significant part of his life practicing. We talk about pain and

suffering, we talk about damage, we talk about pecuniary versus non-pecuniary,

and he'll do a much better job of talking about it.

But,

generally speaking, it's easy to prove if you damage your car, what's the cost

of replacement? What's the cost of repair? You can quantify that pretty simply,

but when you talk about pain and suffering of an individual, what is a broken

arm worth caused in an accident? What is pain and suffering worth? What is

embarrassment worth?

It would

be very difficult, I think, if we had to prove the damages here. In fact, I

think it would be a deterrent to people commencing the action. What we're saying

here with

section 5 is it may be commenced without proof of damage.

“In an

action for the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image,” –

section 6 –

“the person depicted … does not lose the expectation of privacy with respect to

the intimate image where (

a) the person (

i) consented to another person

recording the intimate image, or (ii) provided the intimate image to another

person; and (

b) that the other person knew or ought reasonably to have known

that the person depicted in the intimate image did not consent to the further

distribution of the intimate image.”

So I

think that lays it out. Just the fact that you created the image and may have

distributed it to another individual, you created it with another individual,

that does not remove the expectation of privacy.

Another,

I think, very significant

section is in

section 7. “Where an action for the

non-consensual distribution of an intimate image is commenced, (

a) it shall be

presumed that the intimate image was distributed without the consent of the

person depicted in the intimate image; and (

b) the defendant shall establish

that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that he or she had ongoing

consent for distribution of that intimate image.”

So what

we're doing is we're flipping the onus. Usually the onus is on the individual to

prove the damage, to prove the loss, to prove that it was the other person's

fault or liability, or it was their issue. This one is the other way around. The

defendant, in a case like this, has to establish that they had the reasonable

grounds to believe that they did have consent to do this.

So that

flips it around, because it's obviously very hard – you think about the

plaintiffs in these cases, the victims in these cases. It's already terrible

enough. I say to people, you only have to talk to anybody that's been involved

in a situation like this. It's traumatic. It is traumatic not knowing who has

seen this picture, this recording, this image; not knowing who's seen it, not

knowing how far it has travelled; knowing that it could be out there on other

sites for people to see. It's disgusting what these people have to go through.

Again, I

have no problem with this whatsoever. I was asked a question in the press

conference: Do you think it could be challenged? Go for it. Go for it. Challenge

it. Here's an easier solution to those people that feel this is not right, put

your phone away. Don't send the image. This is a completely, entirely avoidable

offence and issue. There's no reason for it. There's no justification for it.

Absolutely none, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Again, we have the reverse onus

there which I think is entirely fitting in this case.

“It is a

defence to an action for the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image to

show that the distribution of the intimate image is in the public interest and

does not extend beyond what is in the public interest.” That would be an

interesting defence I think to try in a case like this.

Again,

what I would say is that crossing the jurisdictions here – a lot of this

legislation, we've got a lot of the same wording that is used in other

jurisdictions. But that's basically a fair defence, is what we're saying here.

Remedies

– so what can a person who's been aggrieved claim in an action for the

non-consensual distribution? The court may “(

a) award damages to the plaintiff,

including general, special, aggravated and punitive damages; (

b) order the

defendant to account to the plaintiff for any profits that have accrued to the

defendant as a result of the non-consensual distribution of the intimate image

and make an order in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the recovery of

those profits from the defendant.”

If you

think about it, it's bad enough when you're doing this for revenge, for those

spiteful, hateful reasons that you're just upset at somebody, and I'm going to

embarrass that person. The second one is dealing with people that are making

profit off that. Again, in most cases that I've dealt with, Mr. Speaker, it has

been that have had their images shared for these personal, hurtful reasons.

“(

c) appropriate in the circumstances; and – so we can talk about injunctions for

further distribution, for removal, for removing of phones and other technology –

“(

d) make any other order that the court considers just and reasonable in the

circumstances.”

Now,

I've said before, I hope to God that we don't have to use this piece of

legislation. I hope we don't have to. But, unfortunately, given the fact that,

criminally speaking, we've had seven prosecutions as of April in this province,

we've had six convictions; the sad reality is that we very well may need to.

People may need to avail of this remedy.

I'm glad

to know that we're leaving it very – I would consider it fairly loose in the

sense that we have a lot of very good judges sitting on the bench, and depending

on the circumstances, depending on the facts – and there's not a whole

tremendous amount of case law to cite here. This is not something that we've

seen widely across the country, but we're leaving it to our judges to be

creative, and to deal with each case on the facts, and take what steps are

necessary to try to right the wrong; to try to put the person back in the

position that they were in before.

Now,

that's impossible when you think about it, but we're taking steps here that are

going to help deter, to prevent – and, again, we've left it there. I certainly

like the remedy section. I think it's very good, and it allows for judiciary

discretion.

Publication ban – “

(1) Where an action for the non-consensual distribution of an

intimate image is commenced, a person shall not publish or make public the names

of the parties to the action or any information that may identify the parties to

the action until the court determines whether to issue an order under subsection

(2).

“

(2) The

court may make an order prohibiting the publication of the name of any party to

the action or any information that may identify a party to the action where it

considers the making of the order to be in the interest of justice.”

So this

is good. It's an automatic publication ban right away, and that, again, when you

look at it, the courts may make an order depending on the circumstances. This

was something we discussed with the Privacy Commissioner. The person doesn't

have to worry about going through that process. To me, it makes complete sense

that we have a total publication ban automatically, which then, if there's

somebody that's seeking or giving reason why that shouldn't be banned from the

public, they can go to the court and let the court deal with it. But

automatically right off the top, there is a ban on now.

And that

continues on. Other rights not affected – again, that's the usual standard

provision. So I won't get too much into that, Mr. Speaker.

I have

to tell you, it's been a really interesting debate through this process,

internally, and – not should we or should we not. I have to tell you, there's

been widespread support internally and through our partners about this is a good

move. This is a move in the right direction.

I have

no doubt that this bill will pass and will hopefully get Royal Assent sooner

rather than later – we're going to go through a debate, don't get me wrong, but

I just fully believe that there will be unanimous support for this piece of

legislation – or so my hope is. But the work goes on from here, and one of the

big pieces that I've said here is I would rather see deterrents arise,

prevention arise than an action after. Because even though we're giving that

ability to have a cause of action, even though there are criminal implications

here, that doesn't help take what that person's gone through back. And that's

why I think we're going to have to work both – all of us within this House, as

legislators.

But I

especially want to work with my colleague in Education. I truly, truly believe

that the best way to get through and make change is through our youth. The fact

is that we all know as parents in this House and as family members, we all see

young people have access to this technology, and I truly believe that, in some

cases, this stuff goes on and I'd like to believe that many people just don't

realize the impact of their actions. That's one of the things of being a young

person – you learn, you grow.

But we

need to educate that this is wrong and, by doing this, this is what could result

from your action and the implications of it and you will be held accountable.

But again, I think it's best if we convince people and show people why we should

just avoid the action in the first place, which is the sharing without consent.

Consent

is the key. Consent is the key in so many things. Do you have permission? And if

you don't have permission, then don't do it. Very plain and simple, and that's

my main message. We've got, I think, a very strong piece of legislation. We're

allowing for those people who've been wronged to take steps to fix that

situation.

There's

no fixing that emotional harm in some ways that's put on them, and you only have

to talk to someone that's had it done or a family member. Again, I got to tell

you, people say – I don't think there's any way to downplay the seriousness of

it. I really don't. When somebody can hold it over you, when somebody's able to

hold something over you and say if you do this, well this is what I'm going to

show to the world – and I've talked to people who've had this done – it's a

terrible, terrible feeling.

So I'd

like to be able to educate and to work with departments, with the school board,

to find a way to ensure that our young people are seeing this. I still think

there's an education required amongst adults, but I also think that in some

cases, as is often the case, that emotion takes over from reason and people, for

various means, for various reasons, take these actions. I don't care, there's

just no good reason that you should do this or can do this or think that it's

justified, it's just not on, Mr. Speaker.

So, on

that note, I will say that I know that I have a number of colleagues that would

like to speak to this. I look forward to the debate, I look forward to the

comments and I look forward to the Committee stage of this. Again, I want to

thank all those individuals that have contributed to this piece of legislation

and have spoken about it, spoken with me.

I got to

tell you, I think we're making some progressive steps here, I think we're seen

as being proactive and moving into the future here and, hopefully, we can

prevent these types of offences from happening again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for those comments. I gather at this stage of things those who

speak to the bill are expected to make comments from a 10,000-foot kind of

approach, and that detailed discussion or criticism is reserved for the

Committee stage, am I on the right path here? I will assume that that's the

case, and if I wander off that path then I'm sure you, Mr. Speaker, will correct

me.

So this

bill contains a reforming impulse, which I think it's likely everybody will

agree is needed. It happens often that the common law, which has created over

the years quite a multiplicity of individual torts, doesn't respond to the needs

of society quickly enough. This is an example of a case where legislative

intervention is required, we all think, I believe, in order to create a

statutory tort. That is what this does.

We have

three points of criticism here, though, which can be discussed in greater detail

later, no doubt. The first point I'd like to make is that it would improve the

bill if this tort were actionable without proof of damage. Here I make the

comparison to an earlier statute from 37 years ago called the

Privacy Act which was passed under the

then Peckford government in 1981.

The

reforming impulse and the structure and scheme of that particular legislation

are quite similar to this. It did provide for 'actionability' without proof of

damage,

whereas this statute simply states it's a tort for a person to

distribute intimate images, et cetera. It simply says that an action may be

commenced without proof of damage. That's not the same thing as saying that

damages are presumed or as in the language of the

Privacy Act ,

section 3(1),

it is a tort actionable without proof of damage. That's different. We might

consider whether that would improve this legislation.

The big

concern is always a speedy remedy in these situations, and we could have a

closer look at the remedies section. Might it be improved by a provision

expressly for the court to give an order to delete, for example, or something of

that nature? Might we expressly mention ex parte and interim injunctions in the

section that mentions injunctions, to simply emphasize that sometimes, or even

often, where speed is of the essence to save an image from being disseminated

into the Internet sometimes, or maybe even often, ex parte injunctions are the

expected thing?

The last

point, Mr. Speaker, is that I don't see a provision dealing with limitations.

Does this mean that the statutory cause of action falls within the general

limitation of six years? There's a two-year limitation for bodily injury,

personal injury causes of action. Would this fall into the six-year basket

clause in the general Limitations Act

or should it be two years? In fact, the

Privacy Act expressly provided for a two-year limitation, should we be

considering an express provision in this bill.

Those

are my comments for now.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, and it's

an honour to speak to this bill today.

It's

part of some of the great actions that this government has been taking, over the

last year and a bit, to improve the status of women, and to improve actions that

are available to women as we move forward.

Mr.

Speaker, I reflect back on the Speech from the Throne, which really did lay out

this government's desire to improve the status of women; to improve women

leadership; to improve some of the causes and consequences of some of the

actions that happened to women. It really did have a focus in the Speech from

the Throne, and I think that really set out a course and a path for this

government.

I was

honoured to be the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women for the last

year and a half, and I'm very proud of our government. For the first time ever,

we will have a stand-alone department with its own Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women, and I think it really does reflect this government's emphasize

in this area, and I'm proud of that.

I know,

over the last year, working with my colleagues here in the House, and many of my

colleagues that sit around Cabinet table, we've been able to expand the

definition, for example, on family violence. We were able to make a change to

the Labour Standards Act. That's

underway now, and I reflect upon that, people who are escaping family violence,

how important that leave will be. We made changes to the

Schools Act , Mr. Speaker. That was another important change, and

more to come, but we had to make that change very importantly.

Improvements to the Residential Tenancies

Act – the Minister Responsible for Service NL made some changes to ensure

those escaping family violence or violence could be able to do that without

impact. And I think those changes all are reflective of an overall direction and

focus of this government. So I'm very, very pleased to see yet another piece of

legislation.

I want

to thank the Minister of Justice and Public Safety for his concentrated effort

in this area. He commenced a committee on violence against women and girls, and

brought community partners together. There are a lot of community partners,

co-chaired by the provincial president of the Status of Women, which very

important, and committed, and is doing incredible work.

I want

to also thank ministers that sit at government. I made a mention last week of

how these ministers – I think there are seven ministers that sit on a

ministerial committee that we talk to one another, how are we advancing things

today, and how are we going to get this legislation in the House, what are we

doing, and keeping each other accountable for those actions.

I look

forward to seeing some of the great work that the new Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women will do because I can tell you she will do great things. I'm

so glad to welcome her as a minister, but I know that she'll have a tremendous

focus on advancing the status of women. We are 52 per cent of the population –

52 per cent of the population – so it's great to be able to stand here today.

This is a very important bill.

There's

an increase in all kinds of new forms in the pervasiveness of technology and

it's our responsibility as a government, as legislators here in this House, to

provide protections to our province's residents to keep them from potential

harm. And, it's not just females, Mr. Speaker. A lot of males have had

challenges in this area too. As this legislation will establish civil

consequences to perpetrators who engage in the non-consensual distribution of

intimate images, it is my hope that this act will prevent this inappropriate

behaviour from occurring.

The

non-consensual distribution of intimate images can have a long-term consequence

in victim's lives – consequences that we, as a government, have the ability to

mitigate through this act. It is imperative we – when we have the ability to do

so – protect vulnerable people in our society from harm. That's our duty as a

government, as policy makers, as legislators and each and every one of us need

to take that duty responsibly.

Mr.

Speaker, during my time, as I said, spent as Minister of the Status of Women I

heard many, many tragic stories about people experiencing violence, experiencing

challenge in their lives, and experiencing some of the issues that we have been

addressing. It's my strong belief that the residents of our province will

welcome this new legislation with open arms. I'm proud, as I said, to be part of

a government that is taking violence so seriously, and it is important that we

work collectively to introduce measures and initiatives that improve the lives

of people experiencing violence.

This

bill really is a benefit, I think, to ensure that people understand that it is

wrong to send images without consent. It is wrong, especially intimate images,

Mr. Speaker.

This

bill really does one thing that I particularly like, it exercises reverse onus.

And what that means is: “Where an action for the non-consensual distribution of

an intimate image is commenced, (

a) it shall be presumed that the … image was

distributed without the consent …” and the defendant must establish they had

reasonable grounds to believe they had consent.

The

plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he or she did not give consent for the

intimate image to be distributed; instead, the defendant must prove they were

given permission to distribute the image. I think that's important. I think

that's very important. I particularly like that piece of the act that says it is

reverse onus, that you have to prove that if you distribute something that you

have not received explicit permission to circulate, then you shouldn't circulate

it.

I think

the minister earlier had talked about how important it is to understand that

distribution of intimate images without consent is a tort for a person who

distributed the intimate image.

My hon.

colleague that spoke just before me, spoke about a tort. I'll say for the people

that may be listening and who are not lawyers, a tort is a wrongful act or an

infringement of a right, other than under contract, leading to a civil legal

liability. A civil wrong that causes a complainant to suffer loss or harm

resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not the first time in Canada this has been used, this type of

legislation. I can tell you that Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan have had

this type of legislation, and I am pleased to say that we now join some of our

colleagues across the country in implementing this.

Federally, we also have

an act. In 2015, the federal government criminalized the

non-consensual sharing of intimate images by making amendments to the

Criminal Code . These laws made it a

new offence to publish, distribute or transmit any images of a person in an

intimate setting which were shared. And if found guilty, those indicted on

charges could face up to five years in prison while

summary convictions could

carry a six month jail sentence and a $5,000 fine. Prior to this legislation,

victims were only protected if they were under the age of 18 through the child

pornography law.

Why do

we need provincial changes to this if it's already a federal crime? The federal

and provincial laws are independent of each other. Victims have the right to

pursue both or either of these avenues. The burden of proof in a criminal case

makes it difficult to actually convict someone of a crime, since they have to

prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having a separate act provincially would

mean there is a lower standard that needs to be met. If a person is found not

guilty in a criminal case, they could still be found guilty in a civil case.

Mr.

Speaker, I note the hour. I know a lot of people want to speak to this bill

today. Again, I will say, I think it's another step forward. It's another step

forward in protecting the people of this province. It's another step forward in

ensuring that especially rights are protected and that the onus – again, I'm

going to say this. It's a reverse onus, and I think that's really important for

the people of this province.

So I

thank you for the opportunity to speak very positively to this bill. Again, I

congratulate the Minister of Justice and Public Safety for bringing it forward.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

standing to speak to Bill 12,

An Act Respecting the Protection of Intimate

Images.

This act

is really about catching up with the technology that we experience in our lives

today, and that's one thing about our laws. Sometimes people feel that our laws

are just kind of carved in stone and that there are no changes, when, in fact,

our laws in our province are living, breathing issues, where our laws have to

catch up to the realities and the changes in our lives, and one of them, this

bill in particular, is an example of that.

The new

act addresses civil remedies for a person whose intimate image was distributed

without consent. We're hearing a lot about those kinds of things happening, Mr.

Speaker, in the media. We hear about them.

First of

all, I'd like to thank Chad Blundon and Kendra Wright from the Department of

Justice who gave us a very thorough briefing on this law. They made it very,

very accessible. They told us the history of why this bill is coming before the

House, what its intent is, and they did a great job of that.

It also

allows a person whose images were distributed without consent to commence a

civil action against the person who distributed the intimate images. So this is

really about civil actions, Mr. Speaker. And it “create civil remedies to deter,

prevent and respond to the harms of the non-consensual distribution of intimate

images.”

Again,

in the media we've heard of tragic stories where a young woman, or a former

harm that that has done. Then, when we look at the issue of what's happening in

some of our schools and the release of images, but that also comes under other

legislation around child pornography as well. So I'll talk a little bit about

that.

It's not

only about giving those who have been harmed or damaged access to the courts for

damages, because that alone doesn't help. It's also about deterring folks who

would do this, because we've seen how harmful it can be, how damaging it can be

and the lasting effects on someone when these images are released without their

consent. So I totally support this legislation.

The

reason for the bill is that the distribution of intimate images, without the

consent of the person depicted in the image, is an offence under the

Criminal Code . Under 162.1(1)

“Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes

available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person

depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being

reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is

guilty (

a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not

more than five years; or (

b) of an offence punishable on

summary conviction.”

So this

legislation – that's the Criminal Code .

This legislation offers civil remedies for the person whose intimate images were

distributed without their consent. It's such a violation. It's such a violation

of people's privacy and bodily integrity.

They

have to define what an intimate image is, and under this particular legislation

an intimate image is a picture or a recording in which a person is nude or

partially nude, or engaged in explicit sexual activity that was made in

circumstances that gave rise to an expectation of privacy in the picture or

recording.

It's not

about being unduly chaste, it's not about censorship, because people have a

right to take images in their personal lives and in their relationships, but

it's about when someone takes that image and releases it without the consent of

the person who's depicted in that image. So the literal definition, which is

found in the

definitions in the legislation, is consistent with four other

provinces who've already done this – Saskatchewan in their

Privacy Act , Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.

common language, this legislation provides a civil remedy for a person who is a

victim of what has come to be known as revenge porn, which is a form of

intent of addressing those issues, Mr. Speaker. But again, let's keep in mind

not only damages, but hopefully that this will be a deterrent from anyone who

decides that they want to hurt, often, an ex-spouse or someone else that they

have a grievance with, that they use this is as a form to hurt that other

person, to humiliate that other person, to inflict pain on that other person.

With the

images, this is a growing problem in our society. We're seeing that, and it is

so hurtful. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including

videos, can occur in various situations involving adults and youth, including

relationship breakdown and cyber-bullying. And I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that it

is more often than not, comes out of a relationship breakdown.

during a relationship, partners may exchange or take intimate photos of

themselves for their personal use. And that's fine; people are free to do that.

But when the relationships break down, one of the former partners may provide or

distribute the intimate images to the other partner's family, friends,

employers, et cetera, or may post such images on the Internet in order to seek

revenge on their former partner. Often, Mr. Speaker, not exclusively, but often

it is gender-based actions. So it's often a male partner releasing images about

a former female partner.

Young

people are also increasingly consensually exchanging intimate images, which may

later become fodder for humiliating cyber-bullying attacks, with these images

spreading quickly and often uncontrollably.

So,

there's a lot of education that needs to be done here, Mr. Speaker, because

young people are doing this back and forth without – you know what happens when

we're young, how reckless we can be, and we don't think about – all of us have

done that in terms of not thinking of the long-term effects of what our actions

might be, as they follow us into adulthood, or not really thinking clearly all

the way through the potential ramifications of our actions. Not that young

people are stupid, but that it's often not at that stage of our lives where we

think about long-term effects.

So,

young folks, in fact, may be doing this willingly, and then it turns sour; then

somethings happens, and then they suffer the effects of mass reproduction and

mass distribution of their intimate images. This takes a lot of education. What

we have to do is really help our children, help our young folks see the

ramifications and teach them ways of protecting themselves. That's incumbent

upon all of us, and it's incumbent upon our education systems as well.

So, what

we have is a new technology that's absolutely fabulous, that helps us speak to

one another, that helps us reach large numbers of people; it's great for

research, it's great for organizing, it's great learning; but also, it can be

used in a malevolent way. And we have to really be careful of that. It's not

just about enacting new laws; it's also about ensuring that education is done to

help our young folks protect themselves.

Often

these images are originally intended for an individual. So when people do

consensual photos or videos or some kind of recording, it's often done in an

intimate setting, where there's an expectation of privacy, where there's an

expectation of trust, where there's an expectation of respect. But again, we all

know in our lives that those kinds of relationships can break down.

The

effect of this distribution is a violation of the depicted person's privacy in

relation to images, the distribution of which is likely to be embarrassing. The

main goals of someone who's violating some