PDF Version

May 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 10

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi

Vidi, Stephenville Port au Port, Cape St. Francis, Harbour Grace Port de

Grave, and Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion of Labrador

West on another successful legion telethon held on Sunday, April 5.

This

year's telethon marked the 32nd year for the event and their co-chair persons

Bernie Denief and Vida Connors. The total raised on Sunday was $22,000 bringing

the total raised over the years to $2 million.

All

money raised at this event is directed to two recipients 10 per cent is given

to the Janeway Children's Hospital with the remaining being donated to the

Labrador West Health Centre to purchase equipment throughout the hospital.

CRRS,

the community broadcasting station, has been an integral part of this event

since its inception and continues to air the telethon from 12 noon until 9 p.m.

Major sponsors like PAL, Fitz's Enterprises and 5 Star Motors have consistently

provided incentives to encourage people to donate to this very worthwhile cause.

Mr.

Speaker, this is truly a community effort and an excellent example of how the

community can partner with government to provide the best possible health care

for its residents.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion and in

particular Bernie and Vida on their 32 year commitment to this very successful

event.

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.

It is my

great pleasure to congratulate a constituent who recently celebrated her 100th

birthday.

Trudy

Anne Green was born in St. John's on April 13, 1917. Her parents were Donald and

Jennie Butler; Donald was a partner in Butler Brothers, a well-known stationary

business on Water Street.

Trudy

lived through the Depression and Commission of Government. She attended Prince

of Wales College and Memorial University College before graduating as a nurse

from Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. She practiced nursing then married her

childhood sweetheart Jack Green. Following Jack's discharge from the air force,

he worked at the Evening Telegram and

Trudy devoted herself to homemaking. Their only child, Derek, currently the

Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, was born in 1947.

Since

Jack's death in 2004, Trudy has lived independently making a life for herself

focused on her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She is a vibrant woman of

strong opinions and enthusiastic conversation. In the last decade, she took

typing lessons so she could use the computer and communicate with friends and

family on the mainland.

Please

join me in congratulating a woman who has seen so much of our history but is

very definitely as defined by her son a woman of 2017.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

evening the Town of Stephenville, in partnership with the Town of Kippens, held

the 38th annual Stephen awards. The event honoured community volunteers with

appreciation awards, and awarded the Citizen of the Year, Youth of the Year, as

well as various athletes of the year.

Ranging

in age from 15 to 91, 24 citizens from 24 different community organizations were

recognized for their tremendous contributions to community and sport.

Gia Caul

was named junior female Athlete of the Year, and Kip Deeley was named junior

male Athlete of the Year. The Youth of the Year award winner was Stephanie

Budden and the Citizen of the Year award went to Rosie Verma.

sincere thank you to the Stephen awards committee and various business sponsors

that made this event possible and congratulations to all those who were

nominated and received awards.

These

amazing volunteers and athletes provide an invaluable service which

significantly contributes to the region's cultural, social and economic fabric.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize a group of amateur actors, jokesters,

singers, dancers and musicians. Since 1968, the Concert Crowd for Logy

Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove has entertained audiences; that's for 49 years.

This

year's performance was called Shelia's

Brush , written by local resident Karen Carrol, a tale of how best intentions

can be led down the wrong path. There was no snowstorm, but it was a very

enjoyable night.

The

performance takes months of preparation. What started in a local school grew to

large audiences this year it had a sold-out audience, a full house at the Arts

and Culture Centre. I had the opportunity to attend the show. The laughter and

smiles on everyone's faces made for a very successful year.

The

Concert Crowd has donated $160,000 to groups like the Red Cross, Canadian Cancer

Society, Kidney Foundation, Rainbow Riders, Community Food Sharing Association,

VOCM Cares Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, the RNC DARE program, the CNIB, the

medical emergency support, The Gathering Place and the St. Francis of Assisi

Parish cemetery and others.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Concert Crowd on another

very successful year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good

afternoon, today I would like to recognize the team at Central United Church in

Bay Roberts. This group of dedicated parishioners have gone above and beyond to

support members of our communities by offering a complementary Lenten Outreach

Soup's On Project.

This

involves both a takeout service to those who are alone, dealing with medical

issues and other challenges, to enjoy a delivered hot lunch, while others come

along to the Christian education centre adjacent to the church to socialize and

enjoy a homemade, hearty bowl of soup and a dessert.

To date,

approximately 600 lunches have been served. There are about 35 volunteers who,

on Tuesdays, prepare the hearty ingredients for the soups and, on Wednesdays,

cook, deliver the meals, serve the sit-in guests and clean up. This year the

project began March 1 and continued until April 5. Residents of multiple

surrounding communities enjoy this community event each year. Mr. Speaker, I

also enjoy attending and, on occasion, I have also brought my guitar along to

sing for the crowd.

Please

join me in congratulating Irish Partridge and all the volunteers of the Bay

Roberts-Shearstown United Church Pastoral Charge on their fourth annual Soup's

On Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to the Coast of Bays talented

participants in the 52nd Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival. Thanks to

our music instructors for their hard work and dedication with our region's

exceptionally talented performers.

It is an

honour for me to extend congratulations to all the performers, too numerous to

list, who shone at the festival. From singing to playing piano, solo speeches,

to traditional Mi'kmaq songs, our students excelled, placing first, second and

third in various categories. Whether you were a first time or a veteran

performer, all glowing reports emphasized your poise and outstanding talent.

I would

also like to throw a bouquet out to McKenna, Destiny and Kailee Benoit, Se't

A'newey Vocal Ensemble, and our Hennessey Memorial Rose Bowl Recipient Jessica

Willcott, who all performed at Highlights of the Festival. Congratulations to

Brandi Jeddore, recipient of the Ron Ennis Award for best traditional folk song,

and Destiny Benoit, recipient of the Adjudicator's Award for Vocal Achievement.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me, along with your classmates, teachers

and community residents in extending congratulations to all participants for

their excellent performances.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

rise in this hon. House to commemorate the sacrifices made by our naval, air and

merchant veterans during the Battle of the Atlantic.

The

Battle of the Atlantic was a struggle between the Allied and German forces for

control of the Atlantic Ocean. It brought the Second World War to Canada's

doorstep, and is considered to be the longest and arguably the most

strategically significant battle of the war.

Canada's

Merchant Navy, along with the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air

Force, played a key role in the Allied efforts. East coast cities soon found

themselves involved in the battle, since Allied convoys were frequently visiting

and leaving busy ports like Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia, as well as St.

John's during the war.

Mr.

Speaker, helping the Allies triumph in the Battle of the Atlantic came at a very

high price with more than 1,600 Merchant Navy personnel from Canada and

Newfoundland and Labrador being killed, as well as 2,000 Royal Canadian Navy

officers and men who died during the war and some 752 members of the Royal

Canadian Air Force. The Battle of the Atlantic also saw civilian casualties we

remember 136 people died when the ferry, S.S. Caribou , was sunk as it crossed from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland on

October 14, 1942.

It is

safe to say the Allied victory in the Second World War would not have been

possible without victory at sea. While it required overcoming great odds, the

courage of the naval, air and merchant personnel helped to keep the Allied

convoys running and the supply lines to Europe open. These brave men and women

were some of the more than one million Canadians and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who served in the cause of peace and freedom during the Second

World War.

On May

7, 2017, the Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies will commence with an ecumenical

service at the St. Thomas' Anglican Church followed by a parade to the

Newfoundland War Memorial for a wreath-laying ceremony. In addition, as a mark

of respect to those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic to ensure our

freedom, the Naval Ensign will be flown on the courtesy pole here at

Confederation Building throughout this week.

I invite

all hon. Members to join me in commemorating and celebrating our naval heritage,

and most importantly, our naval, air and merchant veterans of past and present.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for an advance copy of his statement today. On behalf of my

colleagues in the Official Opposition, I join with government in commemorating

our province and country's naval heritage, especially the heritage surrounding

the Battle of the Atlantic.

As the

Premier alluded to, this conflict began in 1939 and lasted until 1945 making it

the longest, continuous military conflict of the Second World War. I'd like to

take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge and thank all of those who served in

Canada's Merchant Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, and all

who supported the war effort on the home front. These brave men and women who

served in these divisions showed great courage, bravery and duty to our country.

I would

also like to take a moment to encourage everyone to recognize the contribution

of these brave men and women by attending the commemorative ecumenical service

and wreath-laying ceremony taking place on Sunday.

To all

those who have served in the armed forces and to those who continue to serve, I

offer my sincere gratitude and respect.

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 Premier for the advance copy of his statement. The Battle of the

Atlantic transformed St. John's Harbour into a key convoy base for shipping

across the North Atlantic. More than 12,000 Newfoundlanders out of a population

of almost 322,000 were directly or indirectly involved in the war effort, many

who served in the Merchant Marine braving German submarine attacks to get vital

supplies to Great Britain. We must always remember the brave people who stepped

up and risked, and in some cases lost their lives in the war effort.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to reflect on the National Day of Mourning, which was

recently recognized on April 28, 2017.

The

National Day of Mourning is a time to remember those who have been injured or

who have died in a workplace. As we do that, it is important to also reflect on

how we can further improve occupational health and safety. Our government, in

conjunction with all partners in the province's workplace health, safety and

compensation system, must continue our efforts towards preventing workplace

incidents.

Mr.

Speaker, I was honoured to participate in the wreath-laying ceremony last Friday

at Confederation Building with the hon. Minister Responsible for the Human

Resource Secretariat, Members of the House of Assembly, and others who laid a

wreath in memory of a loved one or a co-worker. I want to thank the St. John's

and District Labour Council for organizing this very important event.

WorkplaceNL recently announced new data that show the incidence of workplace

injury and illness in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to decline and was at

an all-time low in 2016.

However,

there were still 13 work-related fatalities in 2016, eight of which were the

result of occupational disease. Mr. Speaker, one workplace fatality is too many.

The National Day of Mourning serves as a reminder that we still need to be

vigilant and ensure that safety is the priority for our workforce.

Promoting safe workplaces and communities is a priority for our government, and

we will continue to collaborate with our partners to help ensure workers return

home safe and sound at the end of each and every shift.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The National Day of

Mourning, which was recognized on Friday, is a very meaningful day for

remembering workers who have been killed or injured on the job. It's important

to the families, friends, co-workers of those individuals, and it also

highlights the importance of ensuring safety in the workplace.

Safety

should be first and foremost at any workplace. It's important that proper

procedures and policies are in place to reduce the number of work-related

injuries, illnesses and fatalities. We should do everything we can to ensure

workers in our province have a safe and healthy workplace.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Thirteen people died

in this province last year because of workplace-related injury or illness, eight

who died of industrial disease. Nobody should be harmed or die while trying to

make a living.

We need

legislation covering front-line worker emergency responders for PTSD and heart

disease. We need legislation preventing night flights to offshore places. But

there is much more needed, and I urge government to get the job done.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize today as the start of Mental Health Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and across Canada.

Following last year's successful Get Loud campaign, the theme this year is Get

Ready to Get Loud. Confederation Building will be lit green this week in

recognition of Mental Health Week.

Each of

us has a part to play in ending the stigma around mental health. I encourage

everyone individuals, families, schools, advocacy groups and communities to

stand up, speak out and talk openly about mental health.

Mental

Health Week is a time to raise awareness about the challenges of mental health

and for people to reflect on their own self-care. One of our many partners, the

Canadian Mental Association, highlights that positive mental health involves how

we feel, think, act and interact with the world around us. Positive mental

health is about coping with stress and making a contribution to our community.

Mr.

Speaker, Budget 2017 recognizes the

need for improved services in the area of mental health including: an extra $73

million over 10 years through the Canadian Health Accord; an investment of $7.5

million to advance the replacement of the Waterford Hospital; and an initial $5

million to begin immediate implementation of the All-Party Committee report

recommendations.

On the

first day of Mental Health Week, I am pleased to inform this hon. House that our

government is on track to release its mental health and addictions action plan

in June of this year.

closing, I want to thank the many groups, organizations and individuals

throughout the province who continue to advocate on mental health issues.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me and Get Loud for mental health.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement today, and we join with

government in recognizing Mental Health Week in our province and in our country.

The stigma that surrounds mental health is one of the biggest hindrances faced

by those who cope with mental illness. Events like Mental Health Week are

vitally important in addressing those issues.

Advocacy

work by the Canadian Mental Health Association and numerous other groups and

individuals over many years have facilitated an attitudinal transition. It has

changed the very way we think about and react to mental illness. While progress

has been significant and we should celebrate many victories, the challenges that

remain are equally as significant. It's for that reason that we must remain

diligent and be willing to get loud for mental health. We need to ensure that

people get the cure they need, when they need it.

recently evident by the work of the All-Party Committee, by working together we

can make the system better, and I look forward to the implementation plan next

month.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mayday is an international

distress signal and, in that spirit, the Community Coalition for Mental Health

and Addictions is organizing a Mayday in mental health and addictions town hall

for community members and organizations to discuss mental health and addictions

in light of the report of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and

Addictions towards recovery.

The goal

is to work together to find solutions based on harm reduction, through

collaboration with community and inclusion. This is a good next step for

government and community to continue to work together. Everyone is welcome

tonight, 7 p.m., at City Hall.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have reached a new level of

concern with this Liberal government. The Premier reached a secret, special

arrangement with his former clerk, giving him permission to continue to practise

law while acting as the top bureaucrat in the provincial government.

I ask

the Premier to provide details of the secret arrangement that he made with the

former clerk, Bern Coffey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, let me assure the people of the province there was no secret

arrangement at all. The employment contract was put out this morning,

proactively, disclosed to the people of the province. The Members opposite, I'm

sure, would have a copy of that by now, so no secret contract.

What it

is with Mr. Coffey when he came to work in September of last year we accepted

his resignation last night on April 30, Mr. Speaker there was a time frame

that was given from anyone who comes from private life, enters in to public

life, a time frame for a transition from his previous life into public life.

The

transition time that we agreed to yesterday was not acceptable. It wasn't moving

as quickly as we would have hoped. Mr. Coffey did his job as clerk, Mr. Speaker;

I outlined this in a press conference this morning. So it was really about the

transition period that took place and it was something that we could not agree

to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

should never have been a transition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Coffey had

indicated that his legal work was sanctioned by the Premier, even though the

public wasn't made aware of it.

I ask

the Premier: Was the Cabinet and your caucus made aware of your secret

arrangement before the story was reported by the media?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all to the former premier's comment about a transition period is not acceptable,

well, Mr. Speaker, if you were the premier of this province and we know that

former premiers would have taken a considerable amount of time. So is he

suggesting that someone comes from private life into public life, that there's

not a transition period that's agreeable?

These

things happen. It's the reason why there's a blind trust that's put in place.

They take time. So in the legal world or in the political world, these are not

unusual circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

secret arrangement at all. The contract has been out there publicly now, Mr.

Speaker, with the former clerk. That contract is available publicly. We just ran

to the point where the transition time would have taken longer and Mr. Coffey

offered his resignation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, there shouldn't have been a transition period because he should never

have hired a Liberal friend to the clerk of Executive Council in the first

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Did he seek any ethical or legal advice on the hiring of Mr. Coffey?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

Member opposite, when he talks about political appointments and so on, I can

assure that the whole province and many politicians could take a lesson from the

appointments that they had made.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, is he suggesting that as I said this morning, Mr. Coffey certainly

wasn't appointed because of a political or any affiliation to any political

party. But is he suggesting that we should not hire the best people that are

available to us, or is he suggesting that if one of those people happened to be

some Tory supporter or some NDP supporter, that we should not consider them for

jobs in great political roles in our province?

Is he

suggesting that there's no Tory available to be clerk or no Tory available to be

deputy minister, Mr. Speaker? We look for the best people that are available to

us and, goodness knows, we have a big job to do thanks to the mess that they've

left us in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

remind the Premier that he allowed his Liberal friend, Mr. Coffey, to take the

office of the highest ranking public employee who's effectively in charge of all

of government and to sue government entities while he oversaw the actual

government operations, Mr. Speaker. The Premier allowed that to happen.

I ask

the Premier: Do you believe that the actions of Mr. Coffey, the deal that you

reached with him, break the conflict of interest law and the concept of conflict

of interest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, to the comments that's been made by the former premier about an

individual like Mr. Coffey, I think the whole province would recognize the great

work that he would have done with the Cameron inquiry and other work that would

have been done in the province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So to

make comments about an individual and the role that he's played in the

development of our province, Mr. Speaker, is a bit I would consider to be

disingenuous for the work that's been done.

Mr.

Speaker, number one, I'll say it for the third time I think now already, no

secret deal with the former clerk; no secret deal at all. That contract's been

out there.

As the

Member knows, any conflict of interest, the onus is on the individual, the

responsibility is on the individual to declare that conflict, Mr. Speaker. That

was clearly outlined in

section 11 of the employment contract. There was a

mechanism in place for that to occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

remind the Premier, he's the Premier of the province and the onus is on him to

make sure it's done right, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

The responsibility falls

squarely with the Premier.

Mr.

Speaker, we're not questioning the legal past or legal history of Mr. Coffey,

we're questioning the appointment made by the Premier.

I ask

the Premier: Was the conflict of interest advisory committee consulted prior to

the appointment of Mr. Coffey?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in

the past, in the prior administration, I'm sure the former premier would know

this. He would know that when executive people are put in place, as an example

like the clerk, what happens is you get a member from Justice that happened.

You get someone in Cabinet Secretariat. Mr. Speaker, that happened.

In this

particular case, being the Premier, the clerk is essentially the deputy minister

for the Premier. Those meetings happened, Mr. Speaker. There was a process that

was put in place. There were conflict walls; some people refer to these as

Chinese walls, is something we've heard in recent days.

Mr.

Speaker, there were conflict walls that were put in place to take care of the

existing issues and files that Mr. Coffey was working on. Cabinet Secretariat

was aware of it, and there was consultation with the Justice department, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a

very simple question: Did the conflict of interest advisory committee meet and

make a recommendation or is it based simply on consulting with a single person

in the Department of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure

the former premier would know that is the process that he would have followed

with his appointments in the past as well. This is a long-standing process that

occurs. He meets with a member from the Justice department, in this particular

case with the Cabinet Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case with me

as Premier of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, there were a number of files, not a lot, seven files that Mr. Coffey

had agreed or wanted to continue on representing them. Mr. Speaker, in a timely

fashion transitioned out, no new files, no new matters for those existing

clients.

Mr.

Coffey was leaving a private life, coming into public service, Mr. Speaker.

There was a transition time that we wanted to engage. Unfortunately, that

transition time didn't fit the agendas and he issued his resignation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

maybe the Premier can explain how he knew exactly what Mr. Coffey had. The

Premier talked earlier today when he met with the media that there was a list,

and provided a list of all cases.

I ask

the Premier: Will you table the list here in the House of Assembly and let the

public judge if there are any other conflicts of interest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For

someone who is, I think, still critic for the Department of Justice and Public

Safety, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member opposite should know, when he asked that

question, that there is an issue about solicitor-client privileges in our

province.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at that list there is an issue about solicitor-client

privilege. There's also now whether he cares about this or not, I don't know.

Obviously he doesn't care or he wouldn't have asked the question, but there must

be a protection of privacy within our province, Mr. Speaker.

That

list was Mr. Coffey's list. It wasn't a long list, Mr. Speaker, for someone who

came from private practice into public life. There is an issue of

solicitor-client privilege, Mr. Speaker. There's also an issue of privacy, and

Mr. Coffey had taken many names off that list. That list was condensed, so there

would have been no conflict that would have existed with those individuals as

they fell off that list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Without seeing the list how can the people of the province be

assured that there wasn't more than seven? Are you asking people to simply just

trust you, Premier, on this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'd like to ask the former premier one simple question: Does he believe in

solicitor-client privilege? Does he believe in that, because that is a

fundamental concept of our justice system? Does he believe in protecting the

privacy of individuals, Mr. Speaker?

This was

a relationship between the former clerk who was a private lawyer at the time,

Mr. Speaker. This was a list; no more additions to the list, no more new files,

Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the former premier, in his capacity today as an MHA in

this House, must understand the issues around solicitor-client privileges, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell the Premier what I understand. I understand that he allowed a blatant

conflict of interest to occur on his watch (inaudible) the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

He allowed to let it happen,

Mr. Speaker, the highest public servant in the province and the most blatant

conflict of interest that this province as ever seen before. Mr. Coffey has sued

Nalcor. He's suing Western Health. We also know that he has done work for the

Law Society.

I ask

the Premier: Can he say that Mr. Coffey did not handle any files in government

related to any of those departments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

want to address the files that the Member opposite just mentioned one about

Nalcor, and I explained this morning when we did our press conference, Mr.

Speaker. The issue around Nalcor there was an employee that worked at Nalcor

that felt he was wrongfully dismissed. There's a limitation period for that

individual to act upon that wrongful dismissal. It's a two-year limitation

period.

What Mr.

Coffey did for that individual was merely pursue and give that client the

opportunity to actually pursue the wrongful dismissal. He made it quite clear to

the client that he would not be the lawyer that would be representing him. That

has never been served with Nalcor. We don't know where that will go, but what we

do know is that Mr. Coffey had made a commitment that he would not represent

that particular person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

that the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Health, the

Department of Justice have been impacted by the Premier's secret arrangement.

What

protections were put in place to protect the public interest in these

departments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the conflict walls that were put in place that I just discussed earlier, there

was a meeting with a member from the Department of Justice who clearly outlined

the way information would flow through the Cabinet Secretariat; and the areas

that there would have been some issues that could arise, he met with Mr. Coffey,

met with the appropriate deputy minister at the time. Keep in mind that any

conflict of interest, the onus is on the individual to actually declare that

conflict, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case, there was no conflict that was

declared.

Again,

back to the Nalcor issue which they seemed to actually draw a big focus on, I

just said that a statement of claim was put in place to allow the client the

opportunity to pursue a wrongful dismissal, and Mr. Coffey had agreed that he

would not be the lawyer on record to pursue that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier says it would be a breach of solicitor-client privilege to share the

names, yet the Premier has that information available to him. I wonder if that's

a breach of the solicitor-client privilege.

The

Premier said this morning that he became aware of the Nalcor lawsuit through the

media. Mr. Coffey is on record of telling the media that government was aware of

all cases.

Premier,

which statement is correct?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

two different situations, Mr. Speaker. We were aware of the issue with Nalcor

back in September of last year. That was one of the issues and claims and files

that were mentioned, of the number that I just mentioned a few minutes ago.

With the

Nalcor piece, as I said, there was an employee that dismissed from Nalcor,

two-year timeframe for that employee to act upon the wrongful dismissal. Mr.

Coffey, at this particular point, filed a statement of claim. That's it; it just

sits there, Mr. Speaker, in the courts. It has not been served; no action taken

on that statement of claim.

Mr.

Speaker, I said this morning when I did the press conference that, yes, under

section 11, I should have been notified. I would have been notified in writing

on any particular area that could have been a potential conflict. When I asked

Mr. Coffey about that he had the answer, what I just mentioned there about this

particular individual and felt that there was no conflict of interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the Premier if Mr. Coffey wasn't in the job in the first place, this would never

have happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

stated to The Telegram that proper

measures were taken to address any potential overlap. The Premier today has

talked about conflict of interest or conflict walls that have been put in place.

So I ask

the Premier: Will you publicly provide the details of what measures were put in

place with these walls to ensure and protect the public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

number one, the contract's been out there, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Coffey had a meeting

with the Cabinet Secretariat. He also met, as I just mentioned, with the

appropriate deputy minister where there could have been, if indeed a conflict

should arise.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said so many times now, the issue around conflict of interest

and we find it, I would suggest, in this House all the time. If there is ever an

issue, we expect that any sitting Member here would actually recuse himself of

that debate.

I'm sure

that in his past experience, Mr. Speaker, the former premier, who was a

minister, too, in some Cabinet I would suggest that there were times that in

the debate around Cabinet table or within caucus or wherever it might have been,

that he would have found there would have been times when he would have had to

recuse himself.

Mr.

Speaker, I would think that maybe if there was ever a discussion in Cabinet

about, let's say, RNC pensions and so on, that maybe that's not an issue that he

would feel that he should engage himself in.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is saying that what I believe I heard him say today is

the contract was the extent of the conflict walls that he had put in place. Mr.

Coffey stated that he had erected what he called, Chinese walls. The Premier has

talked about conflict walls; now he's saying that it was his contract.

So,

Premier, are you saying that the contract was the entirety of the conflict

walls? What I've asked you to do, would you make public those walls that you say

were erected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

only be very pleased to answer that question through your Chair, Mr. Speaker. As

I said earlier, there were a number of things that would have happened. First of

all, he met with the appropriate deputy ministers to give them an update or

explain to them what any potential issue could have been. He also met with the

Cabinet Secretariat, Mr. Speaker. I had met with him too. Those conflict walls

were put in place, the Chinese walls as he just mentioned. Not unusual at all in

this particular circumstance.

But, Mr.

Speaker, let's not forget, this was meant to be a transition out. There were no

new files, no new clients, no new matters, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Coffey had been

advancing that, reducing that client list. Unfortunately, he's loyal to his

clients in this particular case and we just could not get to where we would need

to be within a reasonable transition time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

should have been loyal to the people of the province before loyal to anyone

else, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier says

when I asked him what those conflict walls contain he met with deputy

ministers, he met with Cabinet Secretariat, he met with the Premier and those

walls were put in place. That was the words the Premier just said.

What

walls were put in place, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I

think when you look at the loyalty of an individual like Bern Coffey and the

work that he's done to many cancer survivors, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's

tough to question the loyalty to the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, those

conflict walls were put in place. He met with his staff in the Cabinet

Secretariat. He met with the DM whose department that would have been involved

in some of those potential conflicts. This is the criteria that was put in

place, Mr. Speaker.

As well,

to put some belts and braces on it, Mr. Speaker, in

section 10 and 11 of the

employment contract, in particular in

section 11, you will see that Mr. Coffey

would have been asked to report any progress in writing of any potential

conflict.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Justice: When were you made aware of the secret arrangement with

Mr. Coffey?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

confirm that there's no secret arrangement that I'm aware of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, this morning the

Premier indicated that all his Cabinet weren't aware of it. So it's a secret to

them I guess in some respects, if you want to talk about secret agreements.

I'll ask

the minister: When did you become aware of the agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

made aware of this through the Department of Justice back at the time of the

hiring. As has been stated here, the Department of Justice would have had a

solicitor that met with Mr. Coffey to discuss his files coming in and going

through the transition. So that's when I would have been made aware.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, this morning the

Premier alluded to an opinion from Justice in regard to the ethics and meeting

the conflict of interest guidelines.

I ask

the minister: Can we see a copy of that opinion?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Member opposite should know full well that an opinion of that nature would

be solicitor-client privilege. The questions that are being asked here by the

Members opposite today demonstrate that they I think they are aware but they

certainly don't care about solicitor-client privilege, but it is something that

I certainly understand and appreciate the importance of.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

doesn't need to hide behind solicitor-client privilege. It's up to him whether

he wants to release the information or not.

Does the

Minister of Justice believe that the arrangement made, in light of the conflict

of interest law, that it was appropriate that the Premier had made this

arrangement with this individual? As the Attorney General and Minister of

Justice, do you believe it was appropriate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact

is when Mr. Coffey was hired, he immediately notified the Department of Justice.

He notified the Premier. He notified Cabinet Secretariat. The fact is he was a

practicing lawyer. As someone who practiced before they got into politics, I

understand how transitions work. Certainly, I had a transition period myself. It

took me a significant period of time to get rid of my files.

Because

he identified that right away, there was a meeting with the solicitor in the

Department of Justice to make aware of the cases that were there and the plans

to make sure that the transition period could happen. As the Premier has said

here today, that transition period has taken some time, but there was advice

given on things such as conflict walls.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, if you shouldn't be put in the job, there's no need for transition, and

that's the point here today we're trying to make.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Education was out publicly defending this scandal on

Friday. He stated: The opinion we have internally is that there is no conflict

of interest.

I ask

the Minister of Education: When did you find out about this secret deal that the

Premier had arranged?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of

any secret deal. I think that's been clarified by the Premier and the Minister

of Justice here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Minister of Education: When did you become aware of the arrangement that was

made by the minister with Mr. Coffey?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I became aware

of the current story that's in the news through the news last week. I'm not

aware of any secret deal or whatever it is the Opposition is trying to cook up

here on the floor of the House of Assembly today. It is absolutely bizarre.

They

pretty well pointed out they have absolutely no respect for solicitor-client

privilege or the privacy of the now former clerk. I think it's absolutely

outrageous. They should be ashamed of themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

hon. minister on Friday had an opinion in regard to what information they had

received on the actual conflict of interest.

Is he

saying he wasn't aware that there was a conflict of interest or he hadn't gotten

an opinion on it and he just found out in the media? So Cabinet didn't know.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

As I said a moment ago, Mr.

Speaker, the Member should be absolutely ashamed of himself up here throwing

around mud, dirt, innuendo, making things up here on the fly of the House of

Assembly. He absolutely has no idea what he's talking about, is absolutely

disregarding all of the answers that the Premier and the Minister of Justice

have given him here on the floor of the House of Assembly.

It's

obvious to me here today that he has absolutely no interest in what the answers

are. In any case, he'll continue to make this up on the fly, as he has been

since Friday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I say to the minister: I'll

put my record as minister up against his any time in his 17 or 18 months

(inaudible), I guarantee him that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The Premier cannot

demonstrate why Stan Marshall was not in a conflict of interest as CEO of

Nalcor.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Now the Premier stands by Mr.

Coffey and does not feel he was in a conflict.

Will you

immediately appoint an ethics commissioner to look into all appointments and

hires made under your administration, to date?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

guessing that the House Leader if you had to put someone to deal appointments

by the former administration, we would have needed commissioners the number of

times that they were actually making political appointments.

Mr.

Speaker, we have put in place one of the best Independent Appointments

Commission that exists anywhere in this country right now anywhere in this

country. The Independent Appointments Commission is put in place; they're doing

a great job. We're getting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that never ever

thought they would have an opportunity to sit on boards.

Mr.

Speaker, we're getting people right now that are stepping up. We have a new

chair of Nalcor. There are people that are getting involved on a daily basis

through the Independent Appointments Commission. They're doing a good job and

we'll continue to use the Independent Appointments Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader for a quick question, no

preamble.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the people of

the province are outraged by what they are seeing here. The Premier has kept

this from the people of the province; they've kept it secret from the Cabinet

and the caucus. No one knows about it

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to get to

his question.

MR. P. DAVIS:

This is another example of

complete incompetence by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I ask the Premier, Mr.

Speaker

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier told media today he believed it was fine for the most senior public

servant to continue suing government until June 30, that he thought it was all

right not to inform his Cabinet of the ongoing potential conflicts, and that he

would do it all over again.

I ask

the Premier: In light of this egregious lack of due diligence, will he resign?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

no intention of resigning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

At some point, we might

figure out who the real Leader of the NDP is, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about

conflicts, I have to remind the Member who just answered that question that she

was the individual that stood up in the Management Commission and voted for her

own raise her own raise in the Management Commission; made sure that she put

more money in her own pocket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

More money in her own pocket.

So, Mr.

Speaker, no, I have no intentions of resigning. When I made the comment this

morning about hiring Mr. Coffey, yes, if I had to do that over again, given the

information that I had at the time, we would have done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask for the co-operation of

all Members.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I point

out to the Premier that what we are questioning him about today here is his

behaviour as the Premier of this province. And believe me, what I've heard on

the streets during this weekend, people are not pleased with his behaviour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

So I ask the Premier: Why was

Cabinet not informed that Mr. Coffey would be acting as a lawyer against Nalcor

and Western Health, while also acting as clerk of the Executive Council?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

one more time I'll repeat the issue around Nalcor. There was an individual that

was dismissed from Nalcor a couple of years ago. There's a timeline for that

individual, that client who was a client of Mr. Coffey's, to actually put in

place the appropriate measures that they could actually, at some particular

point in time, not with Mr. Coffey as their solicitor so what Mr. Coffey did

in April of this year was pursue and give that client the opportunity to pursue

a wrongful dismissal charge.

Mr.

Speaker, that has not been served. I asked Mr. Coffey about that on the weekend.

That has not been served to Nalcor. At some particular point in time and history

the client might decide to do that but from now, as we know right now, there is

no action being taken and Mr. Coffey would not be the solicitor for that client.

That's what I was told this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the

Premier was satisfied that all safeguards were put in place and Mr. Coffey's

cases posed no conflict of interest, why is Mr. Coffey now resigning?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

I'll answer that question one more time, Mr. Speaker. What happened when this

all started back in September of 2016, Mr. Coffey was working towards actually

transitioning out of a law practice. He made a commitment that there would be no

new files; there would be no new matters. For those existing clients, Mr.

Speaker, there were a small number of clients that he was working with to

transition his way out of his law practice. He was the sole proprietor within

his law practice, so he was transitioning out.

Unfortunately, what happened was we could not agree on what the acceptable

timeline would be. Mr. Coffey made a decision that he would return to private

life and, I guess, do what he's going to do in his next step in private life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Are there any other special arrangements for Liberal appointments to

senior government positions that government has not yet revealed to the people?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

never were any special arrangements, Mr. Speaker. There were no secret

arrangements. We just outlined that. The employment contract for Mr. Coffey is

out there. So when the Member opposite talks about special arrangements or

secret arrangements, there are none of those. I have no idea she might be used

to putting special arrangements in place within her own party.

Mr.

Speaker, the contract agreement is out there right now. That is out there

publicly. We just ran out of time with his transition period and the resignation

was tendered and accepted yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that the private Member's motion that was tabled on April

10, 2017 will be the private Member's motion that we will have here in the House

on Wednesday.

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 Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Members opposite have tabled a number of questions and I'd like to take

the opportunity to provide the answers to those this afternoon.

On April

5, a Member opposite tabled the following question in the House in relation to

the proposed long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook: What is the

full value for money assessments conducted by government by EY? Mr. Speaker, the

full results of the value for money assessment will be provided when a

successful proponent has been identified. This is consistent with practices in

other jurisdictions so as not to influence the bids from potential proponents. I

table the document for the Member opposite for her information.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 5, also the Member opposite asked a question around the

long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook: What are the specific

risk assessments applied to the various procurement options? Information

regarding risk assessments will be provided as part of the full value for money

assessment when a successful proponent has been identified. This is consistent

with practices in other jurisdictions so as not to influence the bids of

potential proponents.

I might

add that the answers to those questions were also shared with the

representatives of CUPE when the minister responsible for Transportation and

Works and I met with him several weeks ago.

Mr.

Speaker, as well, on April 5 the Member opposite tabled the following question,

again, related to the long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook

around what are the financial rates that are assumed with respect to each

procurement option.

Information regarding financial interest rates will be provided as part of the

full value-for-money assessment when a successful proponent has been identified.

And this is consistent with the practices of other jurisdictions so as not to

influence the bids from potential proponents.

Mr.

Speaker, also on April 5 the Member opposite tabled the following question in

the House in relationship to the proposed long-term care and acute care hospital

in Corner Brook: What are the transaction costs, legal and accounting,

associated with each procurement option?

Mr.

Speaker, the current contract with EY, which advised and led us through the

procurement process for the long-term care facility, is $450,000. And the

services of EY for the value-for-money analysis for the long-term care project

and acute care hospital cost is $400,000. The province is also retaining the

services of a legal advisor and a fairness advisor for the long-term care

project and the cost of these services will be provided when a successful

proponent has been identified. The province is in the process of retaining these

services for the acute care hospital and the costs will be provided when a

successful proponent has been identified. I'd offer these questions for the

Member opposition.

addition, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions from the House Leader on the

opposite side that I'd like to provide the answers with today. On March 7 the

Member opposite tabled the following question in the House: What is the number

of temporary hires or 13 weekers for each month of the last 12 months as

organized by department? And I'd like to table the document with the answer on

that today.

Mr.

Speaker, also on March 7 the Member opposite tabled the following question in

the House: What is the number of temporary hires who have been extended beyond

their original tenure by month for each of the last 12 months? And at this time

I table the following document in response.

Mr.

Speaker, on March 9 the Member opposite also tabled a question to the House:

What is the profile of the reduction of the 450 full-time employees as announced

in Budget 2016 and as promised in

Question Period by the minister on November 17, 2016? Mr. Speaker, I table the

information there for the Member opposite.

addition, there was a question from the Member opposite related to the total

amount of provincial revenue generated in this fiscal year '16-'17 to date from

personal income tax. Mr. Speaker, personal income tax for '16-'17 cash revenue

to the end of February 2017 I have the number here and I'll provide that to

the Member opposite. It's important to note that this figure is the cash revenue

only as recorded in the government's account Oracle financial system, and

excludes any provincial administered credits that are charged against personal

income tax. The difference in cash revenue would be a result of any changes to

the tax system and changes in the tax file are based, as well as changes in the

individual taxpayer circumstances, as well as any prior period adjustments.

addition, for personal income tax for '15-'16 cash revenue to the end of

February 2016 is also provided on the document that I will provide the Member

opposite today. I'd ask to please note that these figures again are cash revenue

only as recorded by the government's accounting Oracle financial system and

exclude any provincial administered credits that are charged against personal

income tax. I'll provide that answer to the Member opposite.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite also asked a question with regard to the provincial

revenue generated in fiscal '16-'17 from the gasoline tax, and if up-to-date

information wasn't available, could I please provide the most recent

information.

Mr.

Speaker, the gasoline tax cash revenue, as of the end of February 2017, is

$274,183,321. It is important to note that this figure is cash revenue only as

recorded in government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any

provincial administered rebates that are charged against gasoline. The

differences in cash revenue would be a result of any changes to the tax system

rates, changes in the consumer tax base, as well as changes in consumption.

addition, gasoline tax '15-'16 cash revenue to the end of February 2016 was

$180,796,682. Please note that this figure is cash revenue only as recorded by

government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any provincial

administered rebates that are charged against the gasoline tax. I'll be happy to

provide the Member opposite with that detail as well.

Almost

done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on March 15 the Member opposite asked the following question about

provincial revenue generated from corporate income tax.

Mr.

Speaker, corporate income tax for '16-'17 cash revenue to the end of February

was $222,288,268. It is important to note that this figure is cash revenue only

as recorded in government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any

provincial administered rebates that are charged against corporate income tax.

I'll provide the rest of the answer in the document when I share it with him in

a moment, Sir.

Mr.

Speaker, also the Member opposite tabled a question: What is the total number of

revenue generated for this fiscal year from revenue actions contained in

Budget 2016 and if up-to-date data was

not available, please provide the most recent total.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no straight answer to this. Some streams may be available such

as the tax on insurance premiums; however, the change in year-over-year revenue

cannot be isolated to any single action. Multiple things would influence the

change in revenue.

Personal

income tax for example. Revenue would have changed due to the rate changes,

individual changes in personal income, individual changes in personal

circumstances and deductions, and individuals leaving the tax base, for example,

moving out of the province or if an individual had become deceased during the

calendar or fiscal year, individuals entering the tax base or moving into the

province.

Mr.

Speaker, if the Member opposite would like to provide if you would like more

information on that, I can certainly make officials available to provide him

with even more detail.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further answers to questions

for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial drug program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in

Budget 2016 ; and

WHEREAS

many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;

and

WHEREAS

those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover

low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of

life and dignity.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken to this issue pre-budget and I was hopeful and optimistic

that this issue would be addressed somehow during

Budget 2017 . The cuts that were made in

Budget 2016 were disastrous. They had a particularly harsh impact on

low-income families, on seniors, on some of the individuals that were accessing

the Adult Dental Program through the Access and 65Plus Plans.

That

program was one that was created under the previous administration, and the

Liberal Opposition often called for improvements and expansion to that program.

So we were quite surprised to see the program wiped out in 2016. We're hopeful

that considering the impact it had on people's lives that we'd see some change

in 2017, but we did not.

We saw a

budget in 2016 with 300 new taxes and fees and only one of those partially

adjusted in the 2017 budget. So we've got 299 new taxes and fees, some of which

have only come into effect in recent months. None of that was fixed through

Budget 2017 .

Vital

social programs, like the Adult Dental Program, were cut in 2016 and there was

nothing done to address that in 2017. So that's a major concern. It's a major

concern for, particularly, seniors.

We have

seniors that are also dealing with increased costs for home care. Home care

hours were cut over the past year and there were no improvements in that area in

this recent budget. There were cuts to the Prescription Drug Program that

affects seniors and low-income individuals. There was a reduction in diabetic

test strips that are available to individuals living with diabetes in our

province.

People

are facing an increased cost of living on top of all of that as a result of all

those new taxes and fees. This is really unfortunate. It's irresponsible to see

this kind of cut in health care. The Adult Dental Program should be restored to

support those that are in need of care and in need of support.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise today to present this petition on behalf of a large group in my

district.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

public recruitment is ongoing at Mistaken Point UNESCO World Heritage Site; and

WHEREAS

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has undertaken support to

commitments made in the nomination documents of the World Heritage Committee;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately restrict the public recruitment

process for Mistaken Point UNESCO World Heritage Site to qualified people from

the local area so that people from the area are carefully and thoughtfully

vetted for the position in an open, fair and transparent process.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken before here in this House in regard to Mistaken Point and

the tremendous opportunity it gives to the Southern Avalon and all of

Newfoundland and Labrador in, I believe to be, our fourth UNESCO World Heritage

Site designation, and what that means, as I said, for the province as a whole,

and I believe it's the 18th in Canada. It looks to bring tremendous opportunity

to the region, but also a structured and formal approach to ensure that these

fossils, 500 to 600 million years aged, are protected and preserved.

Out of

the dossier that was submitted in regard to getting World Heritage status, one

of the requirements, or one of the things supported was that a benefit would

accrue to the local community and regions. Certainly, one of those benefits

would be that those who are qualified have a good understanding of the cultural,

academic and technical experience of that site would be able to qualify for

positions in the area; and, in so doing, they would live in the community and

support this site going forward and what it brings to the area.

So this

evolved from the community, from the region, several hundred names, I believe,

here in total. There was some concern I've addressed it with the minister in

regard to how the process was going. I think immediately the process for four

new positions went public rather than internally and locally to the region, I

understand, which is allowed under the current legislation and current process

in place. Certainly there are huge concerns with the region that we're not

exercising the great opportunities and possibilities for the people in the

region.

I know

of some myself who have worked there over the summer. Some have gone off and got

various degrees from different universities, and from all we hear are certainly

well-suited to fill these positions. We just want to ensure that government and

the minister recognizes this and makes sure every opportunity and every benefit

we can ensure is vetted with the community and with the people in the region is

maximized, because that's what it's all about, and asking the minister to take a

look at this to make sure every possibility, as I said, for employment and

benefit to the region is secured, because this is something on the Southern

Avalon that's important to the region, certainly important to the people here,

and it's a great economic development and sustainability, and bodes well for the

future. I'm asking them to take a real look at this and make sure it's done

properly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

government plans to remove the provincial point-of- sale tax rebate on books,

which will raise the tax on books from 5 percent to 15 percent; and

WHEREAS

an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local

bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must

be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;

and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada, and

the other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to

encourage reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we

will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the words, the prayers in this petition really say it

all. It talks about the extra burden now on book publishers, on book sellers, on

authors. It talks about the very odd decision of this government, in trying to

raise revenue, to do it on books. When we know that books are a necessity, and

we know that any investment in education, any investment at all in education is

good for our economy, for the current economy and for the future economy of the

province. So it's odd.

What

kind of thinking went into developing this tax? Who thought that this was a

smart move? It's hard to conceive of that, Mr. Speaker. It's hard to conceive of

who actually sat down and said: You know what we can do? We can tax books. We

can make sure it's harder for our students to pay for books. We can make sure

it's harder for seniors to buy books. We can make sure it's harder for our book

publishers to sell books in the province; our own writers.

We can

make it harder for our own people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to

buy books by our own authors. Who would have sat down and thought that was a

good idea? Who would have sat down and really thought of the ramifications of

such a decision? Really, what are the benefits?

colleague here from Bell Island responded to my question, my rhetorical question

of: Who? Who would have thought that this was a good idea? He said the Liberals.

Well, that's exactly who thought of this and who didn't think it all the way

through in terms of what are the roll-out effects? What are the ramifications of

making it more difficult for people to have books?

We've

heard of students whose cost for their books at university-level courses, that

in one semester the extra money they pay is in excess of $100 just on taxes on

the books they need for their semester; some of them way in excess of $100. Who

could have conceivably thought that this was a good idea? And what are the

benefits to the province? I can't imagine that in the scheme of things the

economic benefit really is a benefit at all to this province.

We can

very clearly see how this kind of tax is detrimental to our own people, to our

students, to our booksellers, to our publishers and to our authors. This is not

a win-win situation; this is a lose-lose situation. Again, Mr. Speaker, at what

point did no one stop and say: This is not the route to go. This is lazy, lazy,

ill-informed policy. There's no other way to frame it.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

there's been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K to

12 school system; and

WHEREAS

the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and

WHEREAS

left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious

issues;

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

of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs

in our province's K to 12 school system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've had the opportunity to present this and every time I present it,

there are obviously some viewers out there or there are people who pass on the

message, or there's another petition that comes in that acknowledges the

challenges within our school system, and the importance of having programs and

services to address the particular needs that young people and our student

population are facing in the education system around mental health.

We know

society has changed dramatically over the last number of years and there's a

multitude of challenges within the education system. But within society, as

young people grow up, and to identify and support mental health issues is the

key component to ensure that our students have the ability to be successful

through our school system, and then move on to post-secondary and to whatever

other process they use in their adult lives to be able to be contributing

members of society and be able to have the best quality of life as possible.

Mr.

Speaker, as we look at it, we know there's a multitude of programs and services

that we've improved in our school system over the years, but we still are

lacking a better approach to mental health and better preventative and

identifying processes in advance.

We went

through Estimates this morning for the Department of Education and Early

Childhood Development and while there's no doubt great work being done by

educators and great work being done by our school administrators, there are

still challenges that they face because they don't have the resources. They

don't have the lead coming from the department to foster that.

They

don't have somebody organizing or developing partnerships with the private

sector and the not-for-profit sector who have a speciality in this area, who

have an ability to identify how we implement programs and services; how we best

serve them; how we use technology go get services out there; how we use the

medical profession to be able to identify early signs of mental health issues;

how we use the existing volunteer sector and peer counselling within our own

school systems, older students supporting and counselling younger students,

students who are on the same class (inaudible), processes around empathy and

supportive mechanisms there.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it's an identified issue here. We had a great committee, an All-Party

Committee that identified a multitude of challenges within the mental health

community because they listened to those people who were facing it, they

listened to the professionals who have a skill set, they listened to those who

have done the research, and they looked at how things are being addressed in

other areas and some of the positive things that have happened and some of the

challenges that they've had and have come up with a set of recommendations to be

implemented. In that, are a set of recommendations about how we address early

identification of mental health issues, and particularly around students and how

we foster that in the school system and how we support that.

So we

need to not only take what the committee has identified and put that as a

recommendation, but we also have to take into play what our own educators and

our own society said.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to present this and I'll have a chance to speak to it again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 1, budget.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

looking forward today to speaking to the budget following the non-confidence

vote that was moved by the Official Opposition. I'm happy to stand to speak to

it, because we continually need to set the record straight with this government.

The people need to hear what the real situations are. It's something that this

government is not very good at, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Finance stood in this House and presented a Budget Speech which was

a rosy picture of the reality of this province; a rosy picture that claimed we

were stable; a rosy picture that said everything was going well. It's like we

had two different worlds being presented to the people of the province the

majority of whom heard about the Budget Speech, some would have watched it, they

would have seen reports in the paper, but at the same time there's more to the

budget than a Budget Speech. You also have a load of documents which give the

real figures, which give the real details, which really tell us what the

economic picture of the province is.

There's

even a budget document, Budget 2017 ,

that's called The Economy . You have

the budget document the Estimates

book, which is a very, very thick book. That book takes every department of

government, department by department, and goes through their budget, goes

through what was spent in the previous year, goes through what the government

said was going to be spent and what changes were made.

Then

after the budget, the budget came out for 2017-2018, we are now going through

what's called Estimates. At Estimates, we get to sit down in committees with the

minister and key people in a department and question the government on the

Estimates. We go through it line by line. If we see anomalies from the year

before coming into this year, we ask about those anomalies. We get explanations,

and they are very good meetings, Mr. Speaker.

I have

to say that I always find that the staff of the department and the ministers are

forthcoming. We get their briefing notes when the meetings are over. They answer

our questions. Sometimes we may be happy with the answers. If not, we get to

question more and we can ask questions here in the House of Assembly. But the

average citizen, the average person, is not sitting down and going through the

thick document called Estimates . The

average person is not going to the book that's called

The Economy , for many reasons, Mr. Speaker.

One, the

average person out there is very busy. They are people who are trying to make a

living. They are people with families and responsibilities. To go online,

because that's what they would have to do, open up these documents and start

reading them is something that I think is very time consuming, number one, and

it is a demand on people that's very, very difficult.

What I

think government has a responsibility to do is to paint the correct picture when

the Minister of Finance gives the Budget Speech, not correct a picture that only

gives part of the story. Not correct a picture that ignores the reality of

people's lives, but something that really speaks to the full reality.

In the

Budget Speech, the minister, supported by the Premier in comments afterwards,

did their best to obscure the bad news, what the reality is in our province

right now. They hoped, I guess, that if it came out in dribs and drabs, a bit of

information here, a bit of information there, that people wouldn't put it all

together and figure out what was really going on in the province.

So I

want to speak to some of the things that are in the documents, that are in what

the budget is all about, not the rosy speech that was given by the minister.

What are some of the facts that are in the book that is called

The Economy ? Well, in that book that's called

The Economy , there is a page about the economic indicators in our

province right now and those economic indicators are very, very serious. There

are nine in particular.

So you

have one: the real household income. The real household income in this province

since the last budget is down 3.2 per cent down, real household income. And no

wonder, based on the budget of 2016-2017 which laid such a burden on the

shoulders of the people of this province with new taxes, new fees, new fines.

Whichever way this government could try to pull money out of the pockets of

ordinary people in the province, they did it. So no wonder the real household

income is down.

Retail

sales; that shows people's spending power. As consumers, what are they doing out

there? Are they spending more money? Are they going out to eat? Are they going

to movies or other cultural events? Well, retail sales are down 3 per cent. It

goes along with the real household income done 3.2 per cent. A little bit of a

correlation there.

Then you

have housing starts. We all know that's also a sign of a booming economy when

housing starts are going up. When people feel they can take on building a new

home; that they can take on, especially younger people moving ahead, looking at

having families and looking at settling down together and creating families

together. Housing starts, Mr. Speaker, are down 3.4 per cent; real correlations

here.

Then the

real GDP, the real gross domestic product, which is that by which we judge how

the overall economy is making out, that's down; down by 3.8 per cent.

Then you

have the real final domestic demand. What is it that people are looking for?

What is it that people can seek? What is the demand of the person out there, the

consumers out there? The demand is down 4.1 per cent.

Capital

investment, people who do have money and who invest in capital infrastructure,

invest in creating capital projects, et cetera. Capital investment is down 9.1

per cent. The only indicators, Mr. Speaker, that are up is the cost of living

has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone up.

So what

we have here and this has been definitely stated by economists. What we have

here are documents that show that our economy in this province is in a

recession, and economists agree to that. You would never know from the Budget

Speech that was presented here in this House in April that we were in a

recession. No mention of that to the people of this province.

We tried

to get the minister after the budget was read in the House; we tried to get her

to confirm these numbers on the record. Unfortunately, the minister got

defensive, she got indignant. She suggested it was fear mongering for us to

point out to the public what the real message was in the budget documents. That

it was fear mongering for us to do our job as an Opposition party and question

them on the real issues. That it was fear mongering for us as an Opposition

party to raise those questions during Question Period.

Well, I

find it absolutely unacceptable and disgraceful that the Minister of Finance

would call our questioning fear mongering, when what we're doing is asking her

how do these figures, which are in her document, which show how badly our

economy is, how do those figures balance out with what she gave as the Budget

Speech in this House, which is what the majority of the public know. They don't

know all these details. So if government is not going to do its responsibility

and point out the real story, if government is not going to do its

responsibility and point out what the real economic reality is, then I think we

have the responsibility as an Opposition party to do that.

So it's

not fear mongering, Mr. Speaker. It's trying to get government to acknowledge

the reality so that people can say to them, what is your plan? How are you going

to get us out of this? What they have in their budget is not going to get us out

of a recession. Again, that's something that economists agree to.

What

this government didn't want people to realize I've heard people say:

oh, wow, it wasn't as bad as I thought. That's what this government was trying

to do, to get people to think that way, but what people are starting to realize

is that the 2017 budget is basically the 2016 budget. We still have a tax on our

books.

Our post-secondary students, since last year, are spending

hundreds of dollars on books just in tax. That is absolutely unacceptable. We

have low-income people, ordinary

income people every time they go and try to buy a book having to pay tax. It is

unbelievable in a province that has the lowest literacy level in the country

that we have books that are taxed. That tax remains. They put it on in 2016. Did

they take it off? No they didn't. It's still there.

The levy

remains. That extra tax remains. They made some changes to it to decrease

slightly the number of people who are being charged a levy, but the majority are

still charged and the levy still remains, Mr. Speaker.

The

provincial tax on insurance; I've had many people talk to me about the tax on

insurance. They are finding it difficult. That tax remains.

All

kinds of the fees remain. The 300 fee increases; 300 fee increases that deal

with just ordinary life. That deal with getting your car registered; that deal

with your driver's licence; that deal with your moose licence. I mean 300 fees

were increased and those increases remain.

We still

don't know what the government is going to do about libraries. That was in last

year's budget, and this year they're waiting on a report. This year's budget

hasn't closed the libraries but we still don't know what is going to happen.

One of

the things the Minister of Finance put forward was that things were much better

than we thought they were going to be because we had an increase in revenue.

Look at that increase in revenue, Mr. Speaker. Where did that increase in

revenue come from? That increase in revenue came from oil production and an

increase in the price of a barrel of oil.

Now

that's rather frightening, that we have a better budget in terms of revenue than

the government thought because something they have no control over improved.

They have no plan for the future to try to make sure that they have revenue that

they have some control over, to make sure that we're not every year going to be

dictated to and controlled by the price of oil.

Yes,

there was a reduction in the deficit and, yes, they reduced the gas tax they put

on last year. They didn't remove it but reduced it. How were they able to do

that? Simply because the price of a barrel of oil went up higher than they

anticipated and because there was more oil production than they anticipated.

Something I want to point out, which government has been a bit rosy about as

well, wearing rose-tinted glasses, is the fact that they are basing this year's

budget, 2017-18, on getting revenues based on $56 US a barrel for oil. Now, I

know they have in their document, in the booked called

The Economy , some of the projections that are out there by the

professional groups but, so far, those projections are off because right now I

think it's $51. So what are we going to find next year? This year it was a bit

higher than they expected and right now the signs are that the price of oil is

going down.

It was

only last week there was an economist, a specialist from the UK, who was on the

airwaves here in the province and his judgement is it's going down to $51, $52

it's there already and it's going to stay there; it's not going up. So if that

turns out to be the case, we have a very difficult situation for next year.

Because if their budget, based on $56 US a barrel, without any plan for

increased revenue from any other source, if that's what happens, if that's what

we have happening with oil going down and staying at around $51 or $52 a barrel,

well then we're going to have a loss of revenue next year and we're going to

have a more dire picture than what we have right now. This is what they don't

want people to understand.

I don't

want to make things negative for people, but people know the reality. This is

what the government seems to not recognize, that people know the reality.

They're living the reality. They're living with more and more money being taken

out of their pockets. Life is getting harder for them. More people are going to

food banks. More students at Memorial University are going to food banks.

We have

a very serious situation with a government without any plan. There is no plan in

this budget. No plan for building our economy. No plan for economic

diversification. They use all kinds of great language but when you look for

actions, there's nothing there, and that's what's frightening.

Yes,

they're going to let more Crown lands be available for agriculture, but no money

to help people who are already farming or the younger farmers who want to start

larger enterprises, no money to help them. They need more than just land. They

need support. They need start-up. Or they need start-up, if not for a new farm,

for new projects.

We have

a problem with regard to food security in this province. Government mentions it

in their document, but there's no vision of how they can work with the

agricultural industry to take care, to start moving towards food security in

this province nothing, and that is what is so disturbing.

This

government may not realize it, yet people notice that, and certainly people in

the agricultural industry notice it. So we ask this government to become more

realistic with people and more honest with people, because what's happening is

they are ignoring the reality. They're trying to pitch this budget as being a

good news budget. They appear to have convinced themselves that last year's

budget was a good budget also, and the only problem was they didn't communicate

the budget well enough.

Well, I

got news for them; no matter how they communicate it, no matter what they did,

they couldn't make that budget a good budget and be seen as a good budget by

people. People are still living with that budget. They could not, by any stretch

of the imagination, say to people in some form or other oh no, it's a levy, but

it's not really a levy. Oh, yes, there are 300 new areas that have fees that

have been increased but no, that really didn't happen. I don't know how they

think they could have communicated a good budget last year, how communication

could have changed the reality. People know what was happening. What has

happened now is that we are in the same situation. The mean budget last year

gave no hope and now we have a leaner and meaner budget this year, and people

are not happy.

They can

try all they want to make it sound okay, to make it sound new, to make it sound

all right, people know the difference. We're not the only ones who are saying

this. The media reports portrayed the budget as a stay-the-course affair, and I

agree with that description. The problem is that staying the course in this

province is going to mean all of our economic indicators continuing to go

downwards, everybody suffering more when it comes to trying to make ends meet.

That's what staying the course is going to mean. Staying the course is going to

mean higher unemployment. Staying the course is going to mean an economy that's

more and more in recession. This is what they've given the people of this

province.

I will

have a couple of more times in the budget debate to speak, Madam Speaker, and I

look forward to continuing to raise these issues.

Thank

you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The Speaker

recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to be back in the House of Assembly and to have an opportunity to speak

to the budget. I guess we'll all have three opportunities at least, and this is

my first one.

Madam

Speaker, I just want to start off by saying that I want to keep my commentary

here to try to be somewhat balanced and fair on it. I certainly have a lot of

concerns, as has already been pointed out. But there have been some good things

in the budget as well and I think it's important that we recognize the good and

the bad.

So I

will say, just to start off, that I think this whole approach of this zero-based

budgeting exercise, while there are still a lot of unanswered questions and I

do thank the Minister of Finance; she did arrange a meeting with Opposition

Members and members from her department to try to answer some of those

questions. Unfortunately, there are still an awful lot of questions that they

weren't really in a position to answer in terms of where some of these savings

are.

I think

originally we had a number of $41 million and we managed to be shown where

there's $25 million that really they couldn't account for in terms of exactly

where that money would be saved. I think what we got from it is that a lot of it

is ongoing, actions to come. So that would certainly lead me to believe that

when we looked at, for example, the flatter, leaner management process and so on

that they looked at in core government departments and then Eastern Health, well

then we have agencies, boards and commissions where we haven't seen that happen.

So it makes you think that perhaps that's coming and we could see some cutbacks

and layoffs there, for example.

Without

having that actual information given to you, it's hard to really know. So I

guess when we talk about budgets and the devil being in the details, there are

still a number of details which we are yet to become aware of, and I guess we

will find out as time goes on.

I will

say, though, that the whole concept of zero-based budgeting, I think, is a good

one. I think it's a good idea to be able to say just because you spent X amount

of dollars on travel last year that that automatically means you can spend the

same amount this year. Perhaps you don't need to do as much travel this year as

you did last year. Perhaps money that was spent on office supplies and furniture

you needed last year, perhaps this year you don't need to spend as much,

therefore why put the money there that would only get transferred over into

other categories to be spent on other things, or to be spent because the

year-end is soon going to be up and we hear these stories about we're getting

close to year-end, we better spend all the money or we won't get as much next

year. So I think the whole concept of starting at the zero-based and justifying

every expenditure, that part of it at least is a good idea and I do support that

in principle.

There

were a few other tidbits in there that I thought were good in the budget. There

was some increased funding for early childhood educators; they're going to get

an additional $1 per hour. That's certainly a positive thing; something they've

been looking for, for a while. I think we all agree that we need to make sure

that our children are well cared for, so this goes a long ways to helping

towards that.

We see

an increase for the child care subsidy for families on lower incomes. Again, I

would see that as a positive thing. We saw some new funding for student

assistants in inclusive classrooms. That, I think, is an important thing. It is

certainly something that all Opposition Members raised and have lobbied for. I'm

glad to see that that did happen.

Now, I

did hear commentary from the NLTA President Jim Dinn I'm not sure if he's

still the president, or if he's past president now. Anyway, there's a transition

perhaps. He did make some commentary that while he was glad to see that

announcement, it doesn't go anywhere close to making up for the issues that were

created in Budget 2016 when there was

a number of positions and resources cut. So he did make that commentary.

I don't

have the details on it. Those are his comments, not mine. I know there still

continues to be issues in the classroom. But, with that said, having some

additional student assistants is better than not having them, so I will point

out that I'm glad to see that.

There

was some new funding for transition houses there, which was a good thing. A new

pilot project there to provide legal advice for victims of sexual assault very

pleased to see that pilot project. I think it was just announced about a week or

so ago. I think it was primarily federal money. There may have been some

provincial money that went with it, but in any regard it is welcome news. I

think it's a good initiative and I was glad to see that in the budget.

There

was also funding put in place for a new program for energy efficiency under

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Again, that's a positive thing. Although I

will point out that there always was a program called the Residential Energy

Efficiency Program under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, which was very

similar. That program got cancelled in last year's budget and now we've

introduced a new program. Now, it could be argued that perhaps this program is

somewhat enhanced because there's not just a grants program but there's a loans

program as well. I think even the grant may have increased slightly. So glad to

see that back and if there are some enhancements, that's a good thing. But

again, you're only replacing what was removed in last year's budget.

I was

also pleased to see some funding for mental health. The work of the All-Party

Committee on Mental Health, I think that has led to this. I'm glad to see

there's some money set aside to start working on some of the recommendations

that came out of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I

think there's some money now going towards looking at the replacement of the

Waterford and so on, which again we all know that's needed. That's not the same

as building the Waterford. Setting money aside to move the process forward is

not the same as it actually happening.

I'm glad

that they've done it don't get me wrong but until we actually see

construction, then we've seen on lots of projects in the past, whether it be

this administration or past administrations, where money would be set aside for

studies and all this kind of stuff, and site reviews and all these things, and

then it never happens. Or something gets announced and then it gets re-announced

and re-announced, and five years later we're still announcing it, we're still

studying it, but nothing ever happens.

I hope

that we're serious about this, and this not just an attempt to pacify people who

are advocates for mental health, to give the suggestion that we're really going

to finally do something and that we actually don't. I hope that we do, and we'll

certainly be following that as we move forward.

So as I

said, these are some of the things, Madam Speaker, that were in the budget that

I would view as positive things. Certainly I can't forget as well the gas tax

reduction. I'm glad to see that it will be reduced. I don't know why we had to

wait until June to reduce it. It could have been reduced immediately when the

budget was announced. Anyway, it's going to be reduced in June. I'm glad to see

that happen. It think it's 10 cents and then an additional four, is it, or

something like that. We're not eliminating the total 16 cents, but we're

eliminating eight and four, is it 12 cents altogether this year. So I'm glad

to see that happening, for sure, but it is important to point out that really

all we're doing is partially reducing something was done last year.

That

kind of ties into what the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi was

saying. That the reality of it is that

in last year's budget, there

were severe measures taken by anybody's account on behalf of the government.

Now, whether that was necessary or not, that's the part that's debatable.

Government Members and Cabinet would say we actually had to do that; we had no

choice. There are other people that would say that you didn't have to do any of

it. I think in the middle, the reality that most people would say that I've

spoken to at least, and I think my constituents would say and I would agree 100

per cent, that we absolutely had to do something last year.

Unfortunately, there had to be some increases. It was a question of degrees. It

was a question of how far it went. And that was really the issue that I had with

the budget, that was the issue that my constituents had, is that they felt it

went too far. What you heard from so many people, the terminology was: too much

too fast.

It's

important to realize that, again, as the former speaker said, the budget was

kind of being sold and a lot of people sort of bought into that idea, at least

originally, as this is not a bad budget because we didn't tax you any more I

think the Minister of Finance or other Members might have said something to that

effect.

There

are no new tax increases. That's what it was. There are no new tax increases in

this budget and everybody was really excited about that there are no new tax

increases. But you have to ask yourself is the reason why there's no new tax

increases because there's really nothing left to tax. Because last year we

introduced 300 new taxes and fees and so on and that had a severe impact on many

people and that continues today.

So if

this year to simply say we didn't increase it, we didn't add any more, that's

not necessarily I mean it's a good thing, obviously, but it's not really a

good thing because you also didn't eliminate all the damage that was created in

last year's budget. You didn't eliminate what you did last year. You can't

pretend that last year didn't happen.

People

realize that when they look at their paycheque. I've had many people say to me,

they look at their paycheque and how much money that they paid in, it's way

beyond what it ever was. And we've seen the impact that it's having on many

people in the province.

Now,

some people can shoulder it more than others, without a doubt. If you are

somebody who is just struggling, just barely getting by, just barely making ends

meet as it is, then last year's budget, and this year's continuation of that,

was devastating absolutely devastating.

There

are other people that were in a position to shoulder the tax and all the

increases but it has had a major impact on their lives, on their spending

habits, on their expendable income and so on. Now, are they going to the food

bank? No. Although we have seen an increase in food bank use, which is very

important to note; an increase in food bank use. We've seen a number of

businesses shut down and we've seen increased bankruptcies, people going into

consumer protection and so on or creditor protection.

there's no doubt that it has an impact but there are still a lot of people that

were able to suck it up for lack of better terminology but their spending is

down. Because of their spending being down, then what are the things you cut?

There are certain things you can't cut. You have to pay your mortgage. You have

to pay your car or whatever, if you have one. You have to eat. You have to have

heat in your home. The kids have to go to school and they need lunch and so on.

But when it comes to going out on a Friday night or a Saturday evening or

something, down to The Keg or wherever you like to go, perhaps going for a

couple of drinks down on George Street if that's your thing, perhaps going to a

movie. All those types of things, those are the things that get cut. Those are

the extras, if you will, that get cut.

There

were an awful lot of people who were forced to give up all of those things and

they're not happy about it. The other thing is it's not just them. It's the

impact that has on those businesses. I've spoken to a number of business owners

and so on in the bar and restaurant industry and other businesses who have told

me they have seen a tremendous drop in sales. There's no doubt about it.

I spoke

to a gentleman a couple of weeks ago; he's a member of the Home Builders'

Association. He told me that housing starts are down something like 50 per cent

from last year. He said it's incredible. And people who do renovations on homes,

people who make a living renovating homes, their business has dropped off

substantially. All it has really done this guy told me, which makes sense is

it's fueling the underground economy.

More and

more people there were always people that would do it anyway, but more and

more people are forced to get it done for cash and to get it done on the cheap;

to get it done for cash. Then that sometimes sacrifices safety and everything

else, but that's happening.

Like I

said, there are a lot of people just not getting those repairs done on the home,

just not building that new patio deck, just not building that shed, just not

making that improvement to their cabin or whatever the case might be. They're

just not doing it because the money isn't there. That's impacting businesses.

It's impacting employment. That's why we're seeing businesses shut down. That's

why we're seeing bankruptcies and all of these other things.

The

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is right. Even in the budget document

itself, when we look at the indicators that are there, we see unemployment is

up. We see housing starts are down. Household income is down. All those things

are down. These are things that we need for our economy to thrive and to grow

and so on. That's what we're seeing.

I guess

the point is, Madam Speaker, as I said, it's not about what was done in

Budget 2017 . It's about what was done

in 2016 and allowed to continue on in 2017. That's what's having that impact.

Like I said, there are other things as well. I don't know how many people I've

had call the office, and deal with seniors and so on, that were impacted very

negatively by things like when they cut the over-the-counter prescriptions, home

care.

You talk

about the devil is in the details; if you read the budget last year, nowhere in

the budget did it talk about we're going to cut home care hours or we're going

to increase the amount that a person who receives home care is going to have to

pay. We're going to increase the amount that someone who receives home care

supplies is going to have to pay.

That

wasn't in the budget. All of that came to light two or three months later when a

letter was sent out by the various health care authorities to their clients

saying your home care is up for renewal. By the way, so that you know, last year

you paid X; this year you're going to pay Y. We're increasing the percentage

that you have to pay towards your home care and we're reducing your hours and

you're going to have to pay more for your supplies.

That

wasn't in the budget. It just happened, it came out over time. And I suspect

there are going to be similar things, perhaps, that may come out over time with

this budget that we don't know about yet. It will come out in dribs and drabs

and so on.

These

are the things that are important to people. The people don't necessarily get

all caught up in these big budget speeches and the big numbers and everything

there. That's really not what they're focused on. They're focused on: How does

this budget affect my day-to-day life? That's all that matters. The rest of it

they couldn't care less. They could care less.

How does

this impact my day-to-day life? Do I have to pay more taxes? Will my services be

reduced? How can I live? How can I pay my bills? Are the services going to be

available for me if I get sick? I have a child going to school next year, are

they going to be in a safe classroom with all the resources they need, or are

they going to be in an overcrowded classroom with lack of resources? Those are

the things that people are concerned about and those are the details that you

don't see in a budget document.

And it's

hard for us and the people have said to me, you know, how about this, how about

that, how about somebody else, some of these detailed issues. And my honest

answer is I can't tell you. I can only tell you what is available today. I can't

say to you that as a result of this budget that in two months' time that this

service could be taken away or reduced. I can't say that. I don't know I don't

know. So, Madam Speaker, these are the things that matter to people and these

are the things that we have to ask questions about, we have to raise concerns

about and so on.

So my

time is pretty much running out. I will just conclude or summarize by saying, as

I did in the beginning, there were some good things in this budget and there

were some things that are not good. I'm prepared to talk about the good and the

bad, both. And I think we all should be open to doing just that.

AN HON. MEMBER:

And the ugly?

MR. LANE:

I won't say the ugly, but the

good and the bad for sure.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker, for the time.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you so much, Madam

Speaker.

It's

certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in this hon. House once again and

speak to Budget 2017 . But I have to

say that in the last two years it's certainly anything but pleasurable to speak

to the budgets that are being brought down, because we're seeing the impact of

these budgets is having a very negative and detrimental impact on the well-being

of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.

Before I

get into the budget, I would like to recognize all of these volunteers in our

wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, last week being Volunteer Week,

and I was very fortunate to be in my district and be able to participate in some

volunteer appreciation events, which were absolutely incredible, Madam Speaker,

to witness.

When

you're here in the House of Assembly, particularly when you're discussing the

budget, you can get downhearted sometimes, but all it takes is a visit to your

district, with your constituents, and you're soon re-energized again because of

the great, fantastic people that you're working on behalf of out there in the

districts. You know that no matter how tough it gets, the tough keep on going

because, at the end of the day, we're all about making things better.

The

theme of this year's volunteer week was: volunteers impact people's lives. They

really genuinely, truly do. I know I've spoken about this a few times as I've

got up in the House this year, but it has been quite an incredible year in the

District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune and Coast of Bays with the unprecedented

floods and fires. And it was clearly volunteers who got us through these times.

We were very nervous, particularly during the floods and not knowing whether our

houses were going to be still on land or overboard by the time morning came.

But, at

the end of the day, it was the volunteers who put you at ease. We knew the

firefighters and the first responders were out there doing everything they could

to mitigate the danger that we were in, and they were there to pick up the

pieces the next morning. So hats off to all of them and, again, when we had the

fires, the calls came in at about 4 in the morning, by 6 o'clock we had a

community of volunteers at the Lions Club cooking up breakfast for the firemen,

and they stayed there and cooked for two days as the firemen fought the fires.

incredible things like that happen all across our wonderful province because of

volunteers and on behalf of myself as the MHA for the District of Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune, and all my colleagues, I say thank you to each and every volunteer

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

And this being the Budget

Speech, I also want to talk a little more about my district before I actually

get into details of the budget which gravely concerns me, and that is, again,

picking up the pieces from the fires that took place. I would like to thank the

Minister of Education for taking the time to come to the District of Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune last week to see the school and the damage first-hand and to talk

to the people and see how they were affected and talk to the children. While he

was there, we also toured around some other schools in my region.

I think

I'm confident in saying that the minister was quite impressed with the strength

and resiliency of the people of Bay d'Espoir who have come together and who are

now pursuing a new school for that portion of the district, for the Bay d'Espoir

catchment area. We look forward to the coming months and years and the eventual

opening of a brand new, state-of-the-art school.

So they

say out of everything bad, sometimes there's always a silver lining. Our

children in the Bay d'Espoir area have been operating out of schools that are 60

years old, so they're going to finally have a state-of-the-art school, which is

going to be absolutely fantastic. We're going to have all the proper art

supplies. We're going to have the proper music rooms. We're going to have the

proper drama rooms. We're going to have the proper tech and science rooms. It's

going to be absolutely fabulous and we will get there, hopefully, in the

not-too-distant future, Madam Speaker.

Now I'm

going to join where my colleagues have left off, the Member for Mount Pearl

Southlands and the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, in terms of the

budget and the impacts it has had. I have to say, last year in 2016 when I went

into the budget lockdown my attitude was this: It can't possibly be as bad as

they're saying. No, they've really been putting a lot of messaging into she's

gone b'y, she gone. So, no, we're going in there and sit down and they've

oversold us on how bad they're going to bring it down. It's really not going to

be that bad.

Well, I

sat in my chair and I didn't know that I was going to be able to get up to walk

into the room for Budget 2016 , Madam

Speaker. We went into shock and we stayed in shock for months: 300 new taxes,

the worst of the worst of the worst that I could ever have imagined in a million

years. And we're seeing the impacts of that budget today.

We've

seen our bond rating drop. It dropped shortly after the budget last year and

we're paying higher interest costs as a result. We're seeing the highest

unemployment that this province has seen in quite some time. We're seeing a

record number of bankruptcies. People have no choice but to file for bankruptcy

because the money is no longer in their pockets, Madam Speaker. The feeling of

doom and gloom was permeating across this province, but I'm telling you now, I'm

seeing a change in that because we, the people, believe in ourselves. We, the

people, have confidence in ourselves and we are going to turn this province

around. We do have strong entrepreneurs across this Island. We do have a lot to

applaud and be thankful for.

The

taxation measures we're under now are regressive. They're stifling the economy,

they're turning us backwards and, hopefully, we're going to see some change in

the direction that government has moved us in and we're going to see things

start to turn around.

Again,

going back to Conservative ideology when it comes to taxation, you usually lower

taxation to stimulate an economy. We have increased taxation to the point that

our economy is stifled and businesses are closing down at an alarming rate and,

again, I say people filing for bankruptcy at an alarming rate terrible policy

decisions that have hurt this province immensely.

We're

two years away from the people being able to make a decision as to what kind of

a future we want going forward. In my opinion, I certainly will be looking to a

future and to leaders that have optimism about our future, and believe in our

potential as a people and know that we have the capability to be just as strong

as anywhere else in this country or in this continent, Madam Speaker. And that's

where we're going.

So what

do we now know? Prior to the election of 2015 going in, we had been in

government, our government, for 12 years. And you know how they talk about

cycles of politics. Some were saying, well, it's just the cycle is what it is

and people are ready for a change.

We were

told at that time as a people that there was a plan. Well, what do we now kno