March 10, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 4
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we start today's proceedings, I would like to
welcome and recognize Mary Hodder in the gallery. Ms. Hodder is a former MHA and
the first female Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
have consulted with the House Leaders of the three parties and with the consent
of the hon. Members, starting today, the House will introduce a temporary
proceeding immediately after Statements by Members entitled Honour 100, to
remain in effect for the duration of the commemoration of the First World War
and Battle of Beaumont-Hamel by the House of Assembly.
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
We
have Members' statements today by the Member for the District of Exploits,
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Stephenville Port au Port, Burin Grand Bank,
Terra Nova and Labrador West.
I recognize the Member for the District of Exploits.
MR.
DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the efforts of
the Seaport Skaters Club of Botwood. Between February 26 and 28, the Seaport
Skaters hosted the Skate Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Skating
Championships, the pinnacle event of the provincial skating calendar.
This year's competition saw over 225 participants,
approximately 40 coaches and 25 officials travel to Botwood. Along with the
members of the Skate NL Board, family, friends and local residents, it's
estimated that some 1,200 people visited the Harry Ivany Arena to see our best
skaters in competition.
An event like this is only made possible through the
dedication and hard work of many people. Over 75 volunteers including parents,
grandparents, club alumni and organizing committee members contributed to help
make the competition an overwhelming success.
As the former Mayor of Botwood and a past president of
the club, I am so proud of my community and our skating club. This was an
impressive accomplishment for a community of our size and a skating club with
less than 90 members typical of our can-do attitude.
I ask all hon. Members to join with me in
congratulating the Seaport skating club of Botwood on a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and Deputy Speaker.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Famous footballer, Alex Karras, once said, Toughness
is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay
tribute to one very tough constituent of mine, one who has shown true strength
in the face of steep adversity, an individual who, like many others, battled
cancer and after an intense and difficult journey won.
Since 2009, Yvonne Jones of Mary's Harbour has waged
war against breast cancer. She underwent two surgeries, endless rounds of
chemotherapy and radiation, and after four years of oral prescription, she has
won the war.
Last week, Yvonne was granted the privilege of ringing
the bell to signify that she is now cancer free. Mr. Speaker, throughout her
journey, sometimes at her lowest points, I marvelled at how she continued to
reach out to others.
Yvonne has been involved in numerous initiatives to
raise awareness of breast cancer and to raise funds for individuals travelling
from Labrador for treatments. An excellent example is Air Daffodil, a program
that's provided over 300 flights for Labrador cancer patients to date.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
celebrating Yvonne's good health and her continuing contribution to other
people. She is an inspiration to us all.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Stephenville Port au Port.
MR.
FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to see you yesterday
acknowledge the athletes who competed in the Special Olympics visiting this
House.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to
acknowledge a phenomenal athlete and fine young man from the beautiful District
of Stephenville Port au Port. Twenty-six-year-old Christopher Dugas of Kippens
took home a silver medal in the 100-metre snowshoe race and a bronze in the
200-metre race.
As a seasoned competitor, Christopher is no stranger to
the award podium. In 2012, he took home a gold medal in the 800-metre race, and
in 2014 in the Summer Olympics he received two gold medals while also setting a
new Canadian record. Christopher credits his success to his rigorous training
and coach Rosie Ryan Forsey. Rosie, who has been coaching athletes for over 30
years, was also a co-founder of the Bay St. George Special Olympics chapter in
2008.
I ask the Members of this House to join me in
congratulating both Chris and his coach Rosie as their achievement proves that
the road to success is paved with hard work and dedication.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Burin Grand Bank.
MS.
HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Leon Slaney of
St. Lawrence in my District of Burin Grand Bank.
In February of this year, Mr. Slaney and his friend,
Mike Edwards, were crossing a local pond on their way ice fishing when the ATV
on which Mr. Edwards was travelling broke through the ice, immersing him in the
frigid waters.
Although Mr. Slaney had no rope at his disposal,
through quick thinking he retrieved a set of booster cables from his ATV, and
carefully approaching Mr. Edwards on the ice, used the cables to pull him from
almost certain death, Mr. Speaker.
With Mr. Edwards facing hypothermia, Mr. Slaney gave
him his dry snow pants, built a fire and called the local fire department, which
had members on the scene with dry clothing within an hour. Mr. Edwards was then
transported to the US Memorial Health Centre where he was treated for low blood
pressure from being in the cold water, and a shoulder injury. He was released
later that day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members in this House to join me
in thanking Leon Slaney for his quick thinking and courageous actions in
ensuring a potentially disastrous outcome was averted.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR.
HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the
Clarenville Area Chamber of Commerce.
Formed in the 1960s, the Chamber of Commerce has become
a business and economic development voice for the region, and it includes a
membership of more than 140 individuals, businesses and organizations.
Each year, the chamber board hosts three signature
events, including its Newfoundland and Labrador Christmas Ornament Project, the
Annual Craft and Home Trade Show and the Annual Business Excellence Awards
Ceremony.
In 2007, the chamber's board of directors introduced
the Business Excellence Awards Program to promote and recognize the exceptional
achievements of its members. There are four award categories.
For the year 2015-2016, the award recipients are:
Business of the Year, Eastlink; Small Business of the Year, Community Vet
Hospital; Corwin Mills Community Cares Award went to Habitat of Humanity
Clarenville; and Mr. Owen Blundon was inducted into the Business Hall of Fame.
The Clarenville Area Chamber of Commerce has provided
great business leadership to the community for more than 55 years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
congratulating this year's award recipients and the Clarenville Area Chamber of
Commerce for its outstanding contributions to the business community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
recognize a pioneer of Labrador West who celebrated her 90th birthday on March
5.
Mrs. Joan Stamp moved to Labrador West in 1963 and
continues to make Labrador City her home.
On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a
celebration with her family and friends where she was showered with
congratulations from the Premier, Prime Minister, the Governor General,
Lieutenant Governor and, yes, even a papal blessing from Pope Francis.
Mrs. Stamp has been deeply involved in Labrador West
over the past 50-plus years and continues to be an active member of the Twin
Cities Seniors Club and the Seniors Resource Centre in St. John's. She has truly
left her mark on the region.
For her volunteerism, Joan was awarded Woman of the
Year, the Provincial Outstanding Volunteer Award and the Town of Labrador City
Builder's Award.
I ask all hon. Members to join me with this birthday
wish for Joan. We know the road has been long, with many unexpected twists and
turns, but we hope that the rest of your journey is a walk in the park on a
beautiful, sunny day.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today, we start the Commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of
Beaumont-Hamel in the House. It's going to take 35 or 40 minutes today, followed
by the reading of names each day until all names are read; but I believe all
hon. Members will agree that, while this is unprecedented to spend this much
time in recognition of these events, these events are very important to the
people of the province.
As the Speaker of
the House of Assembly, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise today and
speak to a significant and noteworthy piece of history of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I would like to recognize Andrea Hyde of the Legislative Library and
Marie Keefe in my office, who has spent countless hours doing research, in
collaboration with some other individuals that I will recognize today in the
Speaker's gallery as well.
2014 to 2018 marks
the centennial of the First World War and this year, 2016, marks the 100th
anniversary of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel.
Throughout the
First World War, the sons and daughters of the Dominion of Newfoundland, now
Newfoundland and Labrador, sacrificed and served bravely in: the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment; the Newfoundland Royal Naval Reserve; the Newfoundland
Mercantile Marine; the Newfoundland Forestry Corps; members of the Nursing
Sisters and the Volunteer Aid Detachments; as well as other units of the Allied
War Effort.
I believe it is
incumbent upon this House, and all of us sitting here as Members and
representatives of the people of our province, to give due recognition to those
who lost their lives during the First World War.
We must ensure that
the names and deeds of these heroes are forever remembered and celebrated not
only by our present generation, but by all future generations of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
At this time, I
would like to recognize and welcome the following guests joining us in the
Speaker's gallery for this occasion: Mr. Frank Sullivan, President of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Command of the Royal Canadian Legion; Mr.
Frank Gogos, Chair of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Museum and Public
Relations Officer, Newfoundland & Labrador Command, the Royal Canadian Legion;
Mr. Dean Brinton, CEO of The Rooms Corporation; Mr. Greg Walsh, Director,
Archives Division, The Rooms; Mr. Larry Dohey, Manager of Collections and
Projects, The Rooms Provincial Archives; Mr. Gary F. Browne, author/historian,
former Spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Legion NL Command, and former Chair
of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council; and Jesse
Wilkins, a Canadian peacekeeper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
During the period from 1914 to 1918, this Legislature referenced the
significance of the First World War on several occasions. I think it's important
to highlight what was said 100 years ago; it is just as valid today.
On May 24, 1917, His Excellency, Sir W. E. Davidson,
Governor of Newfoundland reported, Honours, Awards and Distinctions have come
to the Regiment in extraordinary profusion. Perhaps no other Battalion on the
battlefield has been so abundantly recognised for its valour, its steadfastness
and its resourcefulness.
The 1917 report to this Legislature identifies three
outstanding occasions on which the Regiment has won renown: 1. The campaign in
Gallipoli, including the wining and defending of Caribou Hill; the stout-hearted
endurance through the blizzard in November 1915; the patient struggle against
the ravages of enteric fever and dysentery; and the honoured place of the
Regiment in the rearguard at the evacuation of Suvla Bay and of Cape Helles.
2. The re-making of the Regiment after Gallipoli on
the sands of the desert of Suez, when Colonel Hadow laid the foundations for the
disciplined success in France.
3. The charge on 1st July, 1916, in the frontal attack
on the defences of Beaumont Hamel, when the Regiment moved out and faced death.
That was the fateful day which first won for the name of Newfoundland the honour
of the world. Sir Douglas Haig telegraphed: 'The heroism and devotion to duty
they displayed on 1st July has never been surpassed.' I believe that is still
true today.
Part of what was said, and I quote from the Throne
Speech of May 30, 1917: It must be a source of intense pride to every
Newfoundlander that the participation by this country in the struggle, through
its gallant sailors and soldiers, has earned for them undying glory and the
recognition by their Sovereign, their commanders and the British public.
Again in the Throne Speech of April 2, 1919, our
survivors were welcomed home, and I quote: I avail myself of this opportunity
to extend a hearty welcome home to our sailors and soldiers who have represented
Newfoundland so valiantly and well during the past four years amid the changing
fortunes and bitter hardships of war. Mere words cannot express our feelings of
appreciation and admiration of their wonderful work. Their deeds are eloquent
and pass to judgment before them. On sea and land and in the air their worth has
been proven and their fame has spread far and wide.
That same Throne Speech paid tribute to our fallen
heroes, and again I quote: Those who have died for the Right have bequeathed us
a precious legacy the undying memory of duty performed even to the death, and
the eternal fragrance of that love which exceeds all others that a man lay
down his life for his friends. Their loss to the country can never be fully
estimated because it is impossible to compute the value of the chivalry, honor,
self-sacrifice and devotion to duty which these men possessed in the highest
degree. We can only endeavor to prove worthy of the glorious heritage which they
have purchased for us at such a cost.
Now a century later we will honour this heritage once
again and recognize this significant piece of our history, by entering into the
official record of our Legislature the names of those from the Dominion of
Newfoundland who lost their lives.
The names are compiled from the Commonwealth War Graves
Commission records, which are believed to be the most accurate and complete
listings available.
During 2016, the 100th Anniversary of the Battle of
Beaumont-Hamel, special attention will be given to the bravery, suffering and
loss our people experienced on July 1, 1916 the first day of the Battle of the
Somme.
On July 1, 2016, The Rooms will open the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment Gallery and the Fortis Courtyard and Amphitheatre on the
grounds of the former Fort Townshend, where the first Newfoundland Regiment was
formed in 1795. These are the largest First World War centennial projects in all
of Canada. The July 1 ceremony will be simulcast nationally by the CBC and will
form part of Canada Day programming on Parliament Hill.
I encourage all of you to visit The Rooms and
experience this display when it opens on July 1.
Today, some of you may have recognized or noticed, the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment Museum has created a display here in our lobby of
Confederation Building. I encourage all Members, employees and visitors to take
a few moments and visit this display.
While I am mentioning specifically the 100th
Anniversary of the tragic Battle of Beaumont-Hamel, we also honour the
contributions of our people at all battles in the First World War.
Lieutenant Colonel (Padre) Thomas Nangle, who was the
subject of a Member's statement earlier this week, Chaplain to our Regiment
during the First World War, who was most recently named by our federal
government as A Person of National Historic Significance, summed it very
appropriately when he said, and I quote, Ours was a Regiment of Heroes.
I must also recognize and mention the outstanding
efforts of those on The Home Front, who too contributed and suffered so much
throughout that time.
During the First World War, women from across
Newfoundland volunteered their time, energy and expertise to help Allied forces
overseas and to boost morale at home. They raised enormous sums of money; they
made and shipped clothing, medical supplies and other goods to troops overseas;
they visited families who had sons, brothers, fathers, or husbands on the front
lines; and they volunteered in local hospitals. They were more than 15,000
strong, those women of the Women's Patriotic Association (WPA).
Following the First World War, the Veterans'
Association asked the people of the Dominion of Newfoundland to adopt the
delicate, but hardy, forget-me-not as an enduring symbol of the sacrifice made
by those who served. Today, I am providing to each of the Members of the House
of Assembly a forget-me-not lapel pin, very similar to those worn 100 years ago,
to remember our heroes. After I'm finished my remarks, I will ask our Pages to
deliver these forget-me-not pins to each of the Members.
To honour our fallen heroes from the First World War,
on each regular sitting day a different Member will rise and read 40 names from
the list of over 1,600 from the Dominion of Newfoundland who paid the ultimate
sacrifice. This tribute will continue until all have been rightfully honoured by
this House of Assembly.
To begin the Legislature's commemoration of the First
World War, we will now hear remarks from the Premier, followed by the Leader of
the Opposition and the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi. Following these
remarks, I will read 40 names into the record, again followed by the Premier,
the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
Following that, we will have a moment of silence.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I want to begin by thanking you for
taking on this initiative. I want to welcome your guests to the galleries here
today. Also to The Rooms for the great work that you are doing in preserving
this proud time in the history of our province, what was then, of course, the
Dominion of Newfoundland.
Honour 100 is a time for us to reflect and to pay
homage to our brave soldiers who were lost in World War I. It represents our
government's commitment to commemorating Newfoundland and Labrador's First World
War story.
During World War I, over 35 per cent of the men from
this province between the ages of 19 and 35 left for war. When you think about
it, this is a staggering number. Many of those were lost in the various major
World War I battles. Newfoundland and Labrador's role in World War I touched
every community across our province, and has since influenced the very fabric of
our culture and it has shaped our history.
The people of this province answered the call, both at
home and abroad, doing what they could do for their allies and for each other.
That's who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We answer the call, we
rise to the challenge and we fight for what's right.
Honour 100 will ensure that the sacrifices made were
not made in vain. I encourage everyone to come together as a community to
commemorate those lives that were lost and the incredible role that this
province played in an important part of our history.
I encourage you to please attend the various events,
the anniversaries, and learn more about our role and share our stories. In a few
moments I will have the privilege of reading in 40 names.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I share in the sentiments of the Premier in
acknowledging and commending you for paying this tribute, and to honour those
who paid the supreme sacrifice. Some say it's difficult to try and imagine what
it must have been like a century ago. I believe it's impossible for us to
imagine fully what it would have been like when the call went out for volunteers
to travel to Europe to fight alongside Britain in the Great War.
In communities, we all know, throughout our province,
they volunteered by the hundreds. They marched proudly down the streets of St.
John's to waiting ships and they embarked on a journey to the unknown. We know,
Mr. Speaker, that far too many never returned.
It's also very difficult to imagine what it must have
been like a century ago when the messages started rolling in about the
devastation, the terrible losses of life, the horrific injuries. Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians have gone to great lengths since that time to keep the memories
alive of those soldiers.
Sadly, it's not been easy to forget the horrors of war
because there have been so many incidents since then that drive home the reality
of war and its impact, not only on soldiers and families, communities, our
province and our country. People recall far too well the horrors of the Second
World War, the Korean conflict. All of us remember how we felt on hearing that
yet another soldier had been killed.
In these and other conflicts, not only soldiers made
sacrifices but nurses, medics, merchant mariners, foresters, police officers.
Even today, Mr. Speaker, many people continue to sacrifice their lives, their
physical health, their mental health to defend our families, our country and our
friends, and defend our freedoms.
What an amazing thing it is that so many
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to demonstrate the courage to step
forward for what our forefathers did a century ago and to continue to do the
legacy that they created. Many of those volunteers were just teenagers. Some of
them were even prepared to pretend they were old enough or met the requirements
because they wanted to represent our country.
As we read the names we'll try to imagine some of who
they were. We'll think of their families, their moms and dads, their brothers
and sisters and friends. We'll try to imagine some of their personalities,
things that made them happy, things that made them sad, and stories they knew or
stories they told, dreams they may have had for the future. Perhaps it was
looking forward to coming home to marry or settle down, have their children, to
raise a family. Had so many of them not died, think of the great-grandchildren
and families that would have come after them. Think about their neighbours, the
impact on communities. What a tremendous loss. What a tremendous sacrifice.
We do owe it to them, not only to remember the price
they paid, but also to make their sacrifice worthwhile by taking full advantage
of the freedoms and opportunities that they won for us.
As our children travel to Europe to visit their local
cenotaphs or spend a moment in silence to pay tribute to their heroes, I believe
they really get it. Quite often when we visit our memorials and attend events,
you can see it on their faces.
Just as we've taken the time to educate them, they will
educate the generations that come after us. This Honour 100 project will give
them the resources to do that.
I want to commend everyone, our guests that are here
today and all those that are involved in the Honour 100 project and its value to
us as a people. It really matters and I think it's a very fitting tribute to
those who gave so much.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very pleased to join with you, the Premier and the
Leader of the Official Opposition in welcoming our guests and in thanking all
those who worked on what we're doing here today. We will stand in this House
over the next few weeks to read the names of the men from this province who were
killed in the First World War.
It is important that we always remember the horrors of
that war and of other wars, and that we all do everything we can to protect our
people from other conflicts. Neville Chamberlain himself said, In war,
whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are
losers.
For this province, the Great War proved the truth of
that, hundreds and hundreds of men, some of them so young that today they would
still be attending high school, died on the battlefields of Europe. Hundreds
more were injured, many so severely that they never truly recovered. If they had
the term in those days, we would know they were suffering post-traumatic stress
disorder.
While I am honoured, Mr. Speaker, to stand with my
colleagues and read the names of the men who were killed, I would also like, at
this time, to do what you did, to recognize the contributions and sacrifices
made by women, and those were many. Women, too, went to the front, as nurses
mostly, but they were there. They contributed at home, too, knitting for
soldiers in the trenches, adding the work the absent men would have done to
their own heavy loads and taking on new roles in society. Of course, it was
largely the women in the decades after the war who cared for the men, the
husbands and sons who returned.
Mr. Speaker, when I stand and read the names of 40 men
who died, I shall do so with the heartfelt wish that we will all work together
to keep our young men and women from the horrors of war, that we will work for
peace.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their
lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal
Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine.
Lest we forget: Arthur John Abbott, Eli Abbott, Fred
Abbott, George Abbott, Stanley Abbott, John Thomas Adams, Otto Herbert Adams,
William Adams, Augustus Alcock, Joseph Alexander, Walter Ernest Alexander, A.
Alflsen, Israel Anderson, James Anderson, Joseph Andrews, Walter Andrews,
Gilbert Antle, R. Gordon Armstrong, Chesley Gladstone Arnold, Archibald Ash,
John Joseph Aspell, Arthur Atkinson, Michael Atkinson, George Attwood, Duncan
Atwill, James Atwill, Hezekiah Avery, Alexander Ayles, Edward Alphonsus Ayre,
Eric S. Ayre, Gerald Walter Ayre, Wilfred Douglas Ayre, William Thomas Babstock,
Arthur Badcock, Arthur Baggs, Esau Baker, George Baker, Nero Baker, Gilbert
Baldwin, Henry Herbert Baldwin.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Lest we forget: Uriah Baldwin, Mathias Ball, Arthur George Ballam, Ralph Norman
Balsom, Samuel Bambury, George Barbour, Horatio Barbour, Lester D. Barbour,
Wilfred Hedley Barbour, Enos Barnes, Herbert Bramwell Barnes, John C. Barnes,
Lawrence Barnes, Maxwell Barnes, William Edward Barnes, Harold George Barrett,
James Barrett, Leonard Josiah Barrett, Frank Barron, James Barron, Daniel
Barrow, Alexander Barter, a young woman Bertha Bartlett, Isaac Bartlett, Joseph
Patrick Bartlett, Mac Bartlett, Rupert W. Bartlett, William Washer Bartlett,
John Barton, Albert Chesley Bastow, Frederick Donald Bastow, Gordon Clarence
Bastow, Herbert Belbin, Herbert John Belbin, Stewart Bellows, James Alexander
Bendell, Rance Benger, Charles Bennett, Chesley Bennett, Edward Bennett.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, I will also now read into the record 40 names of those who lost their
lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal
Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine.
Hector Bennett, James Bennett, Leonard Joseph Bennett,
Peter Francis Bennett, William Bennett, William Bennett, Peter Bennoit, Benjamin
Benoit, James John Benoit, Joseph H. Benoit, Peter Benoit, Victor Joseph Benoit,
Walter Benoit, William J. Benson, Wilson Benson, John Thomas Berrigan, Patrick
Beson, Frank Gordon Best, Edward Bewhey, Simeon Billard, Archibald Walter
Bishop, Caleb Golding Bishop, George H. Bishop, Wilson Bishop, Herbert William
Blackall, Edgar Blackmore, Thomas Blagdon, John Blake, Zachariah Blake, George
Blandford, Allen Blundon, Michael John Blyde, Matthew Bobbett, Patrick J.
Boland, George Edward Bollard, Joseph Boone, Stephen M. Boone, Stewart Malcolm
Boone, John Booth, and Harry Hooper Bourden.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will now read into the record the following 40 names
of those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile
Marine.
Lest we forget: John W. Boutcher, Hugh Pierson Bowden,
Walter Bowe, E. C. Bower, Charles Bowman, Alphonso Boyd, Albert Brace, William
James Brace, Malcolm Bradbury, Wilfred Bradley, George Philip Bragg, George
Edward Brake, John Breen, David Brent, Albert Brenton, George Brenton, John
Brest, Duncan Briely, Lewis Brinson, Alison Brinston, Angus Brinston, Augustus
Perry Brinston, George Brinston, Leslie Brinston, Thomas Brinton, George
Augustus Brocklehurst, Michael Broderick, Bertram Brown, Edmond Brown, Edward
John Brown, Ernest Brown, George Brown, Henry Brown, James G. Brown, James
Michael Brown, John W. Brown, Louis Brown, Orlando Brown, Patrick Joseph Brown,
William Brown.
MR.
SPEAKER:
A
moment of silence.
(Moment of silence.)
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I
rise today in this hon. House to remember the Cougar Flight 491 tragedy, which
happened seven years ago on March 12, 2009.
I, along with fellow Members of this House, offer my
deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the 17 victims who were taken
from us far too soon as a result of the crash.
Mr. Speaker, such a tragic event reminds us of the
harsh environment and conditions faced everyday by the women and men working in
our offshore.
Government and our partners have made major progress on
implementing the Wells Report recommendations and we will continue to improve
regulations. Safety must always be the first priority of government and of
industry.
Mr. Speaker, we understand the risks and dangers
associated with working in the offshore and we are working to ensure everyone is
provided with the safest working conditions possible.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minster for an advance copy of the
statement. Certainly the 12th of March will forever be remembered as a dark day
in Newfoundland and Labrador when Cougar Flight 491 went down some 55 kilometres
southeast of St. John's. Our province was changed forever.
The helicopter, as we know, was destined for an
offshore platform where so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians depend on for
their livelihood. Saturday brings a sombre reminder that with all the bounty
that comes from our sea, so, too, does heartache, tragedy and loss.
My District of Ferryland, as well as many districts
here, lost a number of people to this tragedy. This weekend I will have the
honour of attending a minor hockey atom tournament, which is in memory of those
that lost their lives from the Southern Shore. It will certainly be a pleasure
for me to do so.
My colleagues on this side of the House, along with the
government side, want to remember those that lost their lives on March 12, and
send along heartfelt condolences to their families and always remember them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her
statement, and offer my condolences to the loved ones of the men and woman who
died that day. None of us will forget it.
I remind the minister, though, seven years later the
key recommendation of the Wells report remains not done: the creation of an
independent offshore safety authority. S-92 helicopters still do not have 30
minute run-dry capacity. I ask that government do everything to not allow risky
night flights over the fears of the offshore workers if we really believe in
health and safety.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to recognize March as Pharmacist Awareness
Month. This month is celebrated every year across Canada to recognize and raise
awareness of the contributions that pharmacists make to the health care system.
The department participated in the Pharmacists'
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's kick-off event last week, held at the
Hampton Inn and Suites in St. John's. Attendees included Memorial University's
School of Pharmacy, the Canadian Association of Pharmacy Students and Interns
and the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board.
Newfoundland and Labrador has approximately 700
practising pharmacists. These highly-trained, capable professionals provide a
wide range of front-line services on a daily basis.
I would like to acknowledge in the gallery Glenda
Power, the executive director of the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland
and Labrador; Dr. Carlo Marra, dean of the School of Pharmacy at Memorial
University of Newfoundland; and Mr. Richard Coombs, past president of the
Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Allowing health care professionals such as pharmacists
to work to their full scope of practice provides an opportunity to enhance a
patient's access to care. We will conduct a thorough legislative review to
identify ways to ensure all health care professionals work to their full scope
of practice.
At its very core, being a pharmacist is about
understanding the needs of residents. It is about offering support and guidance
as people navigate the primary health care system.
Please join me in thanking our province's pharmacists.
I encourage everyone to talk with their own pharmacist to learn more about the
services they can provide.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement today. We in the Official Opposition join with the government in
recognizing Pharmacist Awareness Month, and thanking the approximately 700
highly trained professionals who live and provide services to Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians throughout our province.
We know in a recent survey released by the Canadian
Pharmacy Association, it outlines and highlights the respect people have and the
importance they put on pharmacists in Canada and in our province: 95 per cent of
respondents had a positive impression of pharmacists; 83 per cent believe that
allowing pharmacists to do more for patients will reduce the cost of health
care; and 92 per cent believe that pharmacists have a key role to play in our
health care system. Pharmacists throughout our province are highly respected.
They are a vital spoke in the wheel of health care.
Mr. Speaker, our administration had recognized the role
they play. We've expanded those roles. We believe it's a good example of private
business contributing to health care and benefitting Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
We join with the government in acknowledging March as
Pharmacist Awareness Month and offer our sincere congratulations and thanks to
pharmacists throughout our province.
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. I am very pleased to recognize and thank pharmacists for the work
they do. Their role is essential in areas such as drug interactions and
counselling to clients, and now includes vaccination, which is so convenient for
people, especially in communities without a doctor.
I remind the minister that as the scope of practice
widens, these services must be covered by MCP. If not, we have a two-tier
system.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Here in the House of Assembly yesterday, I asked the
Minister of Finance, and she stated without qualification, that their government
has, since December, achieved $100 million in savings from the reduction in
discretionary spending and travel.
I ask the minister: Can she assure the House of
Assembly today that her statement and answer given yesterday, that they've saved
$100 million since December, is accurate?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services sorry.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MS.
C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have plenty of portfolios; thank you for not
assigning another one.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to
answer the Member for Topsail Paradise's question. I'm proud to stand in this
House of Assembly and confirm that, through the work of this government in just
88 days since taking office, we have identified more savings of $97.5 million
for 2015-16.
These savings, which include discretionary savings,
have been realized through things like no reallocation of dropped balances or
savings, the reduction of parliamentary assistant salaries, the reduction of
political staff, restrictions placed on hiring, restrictions placed on
consultants and the elimination of discretionary travel as per the directive our
government issued back in December.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
C. BENNETT:
I
have the document here, Mr. Speaker, that I'm happy to table at your discretion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, the Member yesterday said that it was roughly in the vicinity of $100
million that's been saved since December. When being pressed by reporters
outside the House yesterday, she went on to explain this $100 million was
annualized.
Mr. Speaker, annualized means year-over-year savings
and I'm sure she can explain some of that. She talked about travel and
discretionary spending, quite often, has to do with purchasing of furniture,
such as a chair. If you purchase a chair or don't purchase a chair for $200,
you've saved $200.
How do you annualize the savings of the purchase of
such things as furniture? How does that become a year-over-year savings when
once you've saved it and never made the purchase, you've saved it?
Can the minister explain that accounting to the House
of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS.
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, some of the furniture that was taken out were the seats in this House
of Assembly. In response to the Member opposite's question, our measures go
further than the previous government. We have realized more savings in a shorter
period of time.
I remind the Members of this hon. House that the Member
opposite announced on November 27, 2014, that measures they had undertaken in a
full six-month period, I believe, they anticipated to save $90 million. In the
short time we've taken office we've found almost $100 million, as I said
yesterday, and we're not done yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And so they should save more, because the circumstances
in the province are much worse than they were on November 30, on election day.
As a matter of fact, the Premier himself is on the record as saying hundreds of
millions he said $400 million at one point in time worse than it was when
they took office in December; $400 million additional debt put on our province
since they took over. So not buying shares and utilizing resources and abilities
to cut is a good thing for them to do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance one more
time: How do you annualize a trip you didn't take? How does that get annualized
year over year? She hasn't explained it. I will ask her again: Can she explain
the accounting to us?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS.
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm happy to answer the Member opposite's question.
Colleagues on this side of the House who participate in
Treasury Board with me have been meeting continuously for the last several weeks
with officials. We have met with every single department, the majority of
agencies, boards and commissions, and we will continue to do our comprehensive
line-by-line review of the budgets so that we will continue to realize these
savings on a go-forward basis and find even more.
Mr. Speaker, these actions we are undertaking and the
details of the things we found of where we can save money like parliamentary
assistants and political staff I look forward to sharing with these hon.
Members when we present our budget for 2016.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Again, yesterday in the House of Assembly I was asking
questions regarding the very important matter of sterilization challenges that
are being faced by Eastern Health. Yesterday the Premier said here in the House
he's very proud of the work that's been done. He went on to say, Mr. Speaker,
that all ORs are functioning and surgeries are proceeding.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we've learned that last Friday
orthopaedic surgeons ran out of instruments and were not able to perform any
further surgeries. In fact, they said, they declared it as a dangerous situation
at the only trauma centre in the province, warning that potentially dire
consequences could result.
So I ask the Minister of Health: Were you aware of this
last Friday? When did you become aware of it, and when were you going to share
this with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, what I said yesterday is about the communications
and the work that the Minister of Health and Community Services has been doing
in working with Eastern Health to get an answer to what is a very difficult and
complex situation that we're facing. One thing that we will not do is compromise
patient safety in this serious situation.
We know that there are many people impacted by delays
in surgeries. Today, what we're seeing is that surgeries are continuing as
scheduled. Yesterday, there were a few delays in surgeries; there's no doubt,
where this situation is affecting multiple sites within Eastern Health. There's
been even new equipment that's been put in that's been impacted.
This is not new or unique to Newfoundland and Labrador.
We've seen similar circumstances in other jurisdictions and what we've done is
reached out through the work of the Minister of Health and Community Services
and his group, they've reached out and tried to learn from some of the lessens
that other jurisdictions have found from this.
We're going to get to the bottom of this. It is a
difficult situation impacting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the Premier that patient safety was
compromised. He said they want to protect patient safety and make sure it's not
compromised. Well, it was compromised. It was compromised on Friday when they
ran out of instruments. If there had of been an emergency surgery required,
orthopedic surgery required, they couldn't complete it, Mr. Speaker. The manual
handwashing process that's underway at Eastern Health has not kept up with the
demand. Orthopedic surgeons, I can tell you, are not happy about this.
I again ask the Minister of Health: When did he become
aware of this? When did he plan on sharing this with the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At no time since the sterilizing issue arose has
patient safety been compromised. The Chief of Surgery for Eastern Health quite
clearly stated yesterday that Eastern Health always had equipment for emergency
surgery. Even if they run into a situation where they might not have, they had
contingency plans.
I would draw the Member opposite's attention to the
fact that the operating rooms at St. Clare's are working at 100 per cent for
elective and emergency surgery, and that no emergency surgeries have been
cancelled at all during this entire exercise at the Health Sciences Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it's a good thing there wasn't an emergency
because they wouldn't have been able to do it. That's not what the minister
said. If there had have been an emergency surgery, they couldn't complete it.
That's what we're told, Mr. Speaker. That's what's being reported to us, that on
Friday afternoon there were no instruments available should an emergency have
resulted or had occurred at the province's only trauma centre.
I ask the minister once again: When did he become aware
of this crisis on Friday afternoon that did jeopardize patient safety? When was
he going to share that with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, I have been in contact with the CEO of Eastern Health and the surgeons
at Eastern Health on a very regular basis. Had the gentleman opposite and his
team done their research and read beyond the first 140 characters, they would
have found the answer to that question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to tell you this is a very serious matter and to
have the arrogance coming from a new minister like this across the House, Mr.
Speaker, is shameful. This is a very serious circumstance. We are told that
surgeons did not have equipment available should an emergency have taken place.
I have asked the minister several times. He is not going to give us an answer of
when he became aware of this. He is not going to give us an answer and he won't
admit that it is a risk to patients, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this has to do, quite often, I believe,
with the processes. We know Eastern Health is working very, very hard to try and
rectify this circumstance, but they have to resort now to manual handwashing to
sterilize surgical equipment.
So I will ask the minister this: Can he assure
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that handwashing and sterilizing medical
equipment, OR surgical equipment, thousands of pieces, has not compromised
safety of patients in any way? Can he tell me can he assure us that these
processes are protecting patients?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Once again, Mr. Speaker, there has been no issue related to patient safety. The
cleaning and sterilizing of surgical equipment is a very complicated exercise.
Handwashing and manual sterilization may be an old technique, but it still
works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On January 28, Marine Atlantic announced an increase to
its passenger and vehicle rates by 2.6 per cent effective April 1 of this year.
Mr. Speaker, over the past two decades, the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills has been an official watchdog for Marine Atlantic. At every opportunity
the Member, while an MP, would take to the media. He would call the open line
shows and lash out against rate increases and question service delivery.
However, Mr. Speaker, to everyone's surprise, he is now silent on the issue and
nowhere to be found.
So I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why has this
minister's advocacy stopped? Is the issue no longer important to him and his
West Coast constituents?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure to answer the question for
my colleague opposite. Marine Atlantic plays a very vital, important role when
it comes to the transportation of consumer goods and to passenger traffic in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I've had engagement with my federal colleague, the
counterpart of Small Business and Tourism, when she was here in the province
just last week at the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador Conference. We had a
meeting and discussed Marine Atlantic, about how important it is to have
competitive rates.
We're very pleased to see that Marine Atlantic has
discounted its rates by 50 per cent passenger traffic for a period of time at
the Port aux Basques ferry service. As well, they've decreased their surcharge
from 21 per cent down to 15 per cent on this matter.
The Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural
Development works with our federal counterparts to have dialogue on how we can
improve the customer experience.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm glad that the Minister of Tourism acknowledges that Marine Atlantic
is important, and that he had a discussion with the federal minister at the
recent Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador Conference. The little sale that's
now on is little comfort, I think, to people in the province.
Residents of this province expect action and, more
importantly, they want the results they were promised promised by our new
Premier. He sold the electorate on this cozy relationship with the new federal
government.
Now I will ask the Premier: I'd like to know what
specific actions that you, as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, have taken to
address the rising ferry rates issue beyond the Minister of Tourism having
dinner with a federal minister at the HNL Conference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very proud of the relationship that we have with our federal
colleagues on this matter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
I've been minister for only 80-plus days and I've had the opportunity to meet
with my federal colleagues. I wonder how many meetings the Members opposite
would have had with Marine Atlantic on this particular matter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Last week, I did not have more than a discussion; I had a sit-down meeting with
my counterpart. It was the Small Business and Tourism minister. I've had
multiple meetings with my federal colleagues in Ottawa.
We have a very strong relationship when it comes to
looking at how we can improve the services and delivery at Marine Atlantic
because we see how important it is to the people and to the businesses of
Newfoundland and Labrador and to the tourism industry. We're going to continue
to work with our counterparts in Ottawa
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
so that we can continue to have a strong economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Speaker, lots of friendly chats and meetings and dinners and photo ops, but no
action, no results and the ferry rates are still going up. This new relationship
that the new government is promoting means that the provincial Liberal
government will not rock the boat with their federal cousins under any
circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Trudeau is on record as
saying his government would work to ensure Marine Atlantic remains affordable.
I ask the Premier: Are rate hikes affordable? Does the
cozy federal-provincial Liberal coalition feel the recent Marine Atlantic rate
hikes are affordable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I made myself very clear that the rates at Marine
Atlantic are going down by 50 per cent for the period of time at the Port aux
Basques ferry, as well as the fuel surcharge has been dropped from 21 to 15 per
cent, which means the difference of about a dollar in the fare overall. What
we're doing is we're continuing to work with Marine Atlantic and working with
the federal government, as our department has been doing over the last number of
weeks, to improve customer service and make sure we're enhancing the experience.
We have a productive relationship with Marine Atlantic,
as well as with the federal government, and we'll continue to do everything we
can to make sure that experience is enhanced and we can add to the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
The
cozy relationship between the provincial and federal government, Mr. Speaker, is
leading to higher ferry rates for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So he's
happy to accept higher rates in order to keep the peace with the Trudeau
Liberals.
The Throne Speech earlier this week stated that we all
have to make sacrifices, Mr. Speaker. Are rising Marine Atlantic rates one of
the sacrifices the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to make because of
our government's warm and fuzzy relationship with the federal government?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, one of the things in speaking of the relationship
with Ottawa, I'm not so sure the group opposite, in particular the former deputy
premier, could actually speak to what that relationship in any way could be,
because all we've seen from at least reports in any of the successes they would
have had has been really a goose egg. That's what we've seen with the
relationship they had.
So we're very proud. It's been just a few weeks into
this. When we get into March 22 and the budget, of course, there will be things
for Newfoundland and Labrador that will be included in that. The doors in Ottawa
right now are certainly open. There has been lots of engagement and lots of very
productive meetings will occur. It usually starts with very productive meetings.
The former deputy premier would not be used to that, of course, in Ottawa, as he
would prefer to do his meetings over Twitter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign last year,
and in the Liberal red book, it stated that a new Liberal government will
establish an Independent Appointments Commission to take the politics out of
government appointments.
Well, yesterday the government tabled the
Independent Appointments Commission Act,
Bill 1, which I can tell you is a non-binding commission. They can't make
appointments. They can make non-binding recommendations to government, so
government can secretly select from a pool of candidates who they want to
appoint to commissions.
I ask the Premier: How does this take the politics out
of appointments?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very proud to answer that question from the former
premier because if there's anyone in this room who would have experience in
putting politics into political appointments, it would be the former premier. He
had his share of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I
would not have any experience in that, and I will not. Because what we will put
in place, and very proud to be able to bring legislation in place I'm taking
from what the former premier is saying that he's not going to support this
because he would not see this as an improvement over the process that he was
used to.
I believe it is a big improvement. We're going to see
highly skilled Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will volunteer their time to
make sure that the politics are taken out of government appointments. We will
see people who have the technical skills and the abilities to actually do their
jobs. This is exactly what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are looking for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will remind the Premier that his signature bill that
he's brought to the floor of the House of Assembly has sections in it, such as
section 9, which enables Cabinet to completely sidestep the commission and make
their own appointments.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, under Schedule C
there are six pages of entities where appointments can be made through this
legislation that don't even go to the Independent Appointments Commission. It
completely sidesteps the Independent Appointments Commission. The Public Service
Commission makes a pool and it goes to the minister to hand-pick who they want.
How does that take the politics out of appointments?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you.
I look forward to the debate from the former premier as
he defends his process and as we defend our process.
The Public Service Commission, first and foremost
contrary to what the former premier may feel, I value the work the Public
Service Commission does. They do a great job. So for the former premier to ever
question the integrity of that group is shameful, I say, Mr. Speaker. They do a
great job. They will do the vetting, as part of the selection committee that
will actually recommend names to Cabinet. The decision will then be made there.
I will guarantee you, if you ever saw a Cabinet that
will actually dismiss this group of skilled, intelligent Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians they will do what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians always do.
They will reject that and they will stand up for us. That will not happen with
this government, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm on the record many times here speaking loudly and proudly of the
great work that public servants do for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
I'm
not worried about the process they are going through. What worries me is when
they create the pool of potential candidates for committees, commissions and
entities and they send it over to the secret Cabinet decision, Mr. Speaker,
because this bill here legitimizes the secrecy around decisions.
In fact, the Premier said today that if they sent three
names over for senior positions in government, they don't have to say who those
three names are. They don't have to say if they picked one of the three names
and they don't have to say who the two are that weren't eligible.
It's a legitimate bill, certainly, Mr. Speaker. It's a
bill that legitimizes the secrecy process of Cabinet. It gives them a pool to
choose from and allows them to make their own choices so they can look after
their friends when they campaigned last year.
I ask the Premier one more time: When the process leads
to secret decisions by Cabinet, how does that take the politics out of this
decision-making process?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you look at the selection process and when the
former premier gets a chance to read the legislation and as we debate it here,
maybe there will be a better understanding of how this process works.
In the past, the pool was this. The pool was a list of
names that Cabinet, or the Premier that's the list, that was their pool. The
Public Service Commission, an Independent Appointments Commission, no, they were
all of that. The decision was made by the Premier primarily, or by Cabinet, or
some Cabinet friends. That was the pool.
I will tell you right now that this Independent
Appointments Commission is a huge, better way. This is a much better way of
putting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, qualified Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, into key positions. The Independent Appointments Commission is
volunteering their time to do this, and we look forward to working with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great honour here today to stand up to be
the official spokesperson for the fisheries department from the Official
Opposition. Never before in our history have we seen and we have seen in our
history that the fishery has been so good to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It was never important like today, to make sure we have strong
management and we maintain the control of our fishery.
On February 1 and February 2, the fisheries licensing
board met to discuss the proposed transfer with Quin-Sea licence to Royal Greenland.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Have you received the
recommendations from the board?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my honour to stand here today as the Minister of
Fisheries and take the question from the Member opposite.
Yes, we have received a recommendation from the board.
We are continuing to do due diligence as a part of my role as the minister. A
part of that due diligence, Mr. Speaker, has been listening to many groups, many
different individuals, even in the expression of interest from the Official
Opposition in their letter that they submitted to the licensing board. I'll let
the hon. Member know that he can expect our decision in the very near future.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, for a very short question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, Royal Greenland is not a Newfoundland company; it's not a Canadian
company. In fact, it's a company owned by the Government of Denmark.
I ask the minister: Will allowing Royal Greenland to
operate Quin-Sea go against long-standing principles of fleet
separation and having control of our local fishery?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think there were two questions. The first one, Royal
Greenland is not owned by the State of Denmark; it's owned by the
self-government of Greenland. That's question number one.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Very quickly.
MR.
CROCKER:
As
to the second part, the fleet separation, Royal Greenland will not have control
of the quotas in Canadian waters if if their application is successful.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is my turn now to speak to the Premier. This
government did promise they would be removing politics from the appointments
process, yet Bill 1 stipulates that government retain the power to appoint
anyone they want, despite the recommendations of the new Independent
Appointments Committee.
I ask the Premier how this notwithstanding clause
squares with his promise to take politics out of appointments. He's keeping it
in his hands.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two things I think there's a step that the Leader of
the Third Party didn't mention. There would be an activity report that would be
reported to this House of Assembly. The IAC, the commission themselves, the five
names would come to the floor of this House of Assembly. That's a very open
process.
They will be given the opportunity to actually, through
resolution, debate the selection of those five names. Then at the end of the
year, which we will anticipate somewhere between 200 and 300 appointments so
it's going to be a very active commission, as you would tell this activity
report would make it to the floor of this House of Assembly as well.
The other option, of course, would be to stay and
continue to do it the way things were. We are not satisfied with that. This is a
big improvement, and no other province in the country right now is doing
something like this. I'm looking forward to working with the IAC and the
resolution on this floor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm asking the Premier, if Cabinet ignores
recommendations of the IAC on a particular appointment, will they disclose the
names of the nominees and why they are refusing to accept the nominees?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
One
of the things and we've put considerable time into thinking about the three
names, if there were three names that went to Cabinet as part of the selection
process either through the PSC, then through the IAC as they vet this and then
into Cabinet. It's really a three-step process here.
When you consider people that put their names and allow
it to be vetted in this particular process, if there are three names there, two
people would be rejected. Initially, I felt that maybe we should post the three
names. In retrospect and thinking about it that people allow this there will
be two people rejected.
We thought for the protection of privacy of those
individuals, the encouragement for them to get involved in other positions it
could even influence work-related positions that they might be looking for. We
felt that it would be better to protect the names of those individuals that were
rejected. Then at any time, if they so felt, they could actually make their
names public themselves.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, on March 5 the English school board passed a notice of motion
concerning closure of Holy Cross Junior High, one of the few remaining schools
in centre city. While in Opposition the now Minister of Education said the
current board is, quote, 'Appointed trustees, hand-picked trustees, it really
removes accountability. They are accountable to those who appointed them as
opposed to accountable to those people that elected them.'
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he honour his
word and stop this process immediately, until a duly elected board of trustees,
elected by the community, is re-established?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Whip of the two-person NDP caucus for the question. A
little bit of a history lesson here. Back in 2013, the previous administration
chose to amalgamate the four predecessor school districts: the Labrador School
District, the Western School District, the Nova Central School District and the
Eastern School District.
The previous administration said they would hold a
school board election in 2014. Well, there was no school board election in 2014
and there was no school board in 2015.
Members of the Liberal caucus sat there repeatedly
asking questions about the school board election. I'm delighted today to see now
the NDP, after three years, has finally come around to our way of thinking. So
I'm really delighted that you're joined up with us now in agreeing that we need
to have a school board election.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: How could he allow this appointed board, with no
moral authority and accountability to the people of the community, to make these
crucial decisions? When will he do the right thing and call an election of
school board trustees?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it gives me great pleasure to know that now the
NDP, after three years, has decided this is an important issue. I'm not sure if
it's so they can make a bit of political hay about it at the expense of parents
and students in the Member's constituency, but I'm glad they've come around to
our way of thinking on this.
During the provincial election campaign last fall, we
committed to holding a school board election within 12 months. After the
election, the Premier wrote a letter to me, a mandate letter, suggesting we have
the school board election within 12 months. That's exactly what we intend to do.
I've already met with the Chair and CEO of the English
School District, of the French school district. We've reached out to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils. Last week I had a
meeting with the Chief Electoral Officer to find out how they could assist us in
this process. We're going to have a school board election, we're just going to
do it the right way and we're not going to rush it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR.
EDMUNDS:
Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the
speech from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, I am pleased to present the
report of the Select Committee, which reads as follows:
To His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Frank
Fagan.
May it please Your Honour, we, the commons of
Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session assembled, beg to thank Your
Honour for the gracious speech to which Your Honour has addressed to this House.
MR.
SPEAKER:
When shall the report be received?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the debate
be deferred.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Further I should ask, before I do that, if there are
any further reports by standing or select committees?
Pursuant to section 16 of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
a Members' Compensation Review Committee of not more than three individuals must
be appointed at least once during each General Assembly to prepare a report
respecting salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions for Members of
the House of Assembly. This report is presented to the Speaker, who brings the
recommendation to the House of Assembly Management Commission for review.
I am now reporting to the House in accordance with
subsection 16(2) of the same act that I have consulted with the Government House
Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Third Party on the appointments and
on the terms of reference which will apply to the committee. Three
well-respected individuals have been solicited to serve on the Assembly's
Members' Compensation Review Committee, and I understand the Government House
Leader will now be giving notice of a resolution for the appointments to this
committee.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS.
C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, as I referred to in Question Period and as I promised from yesterday's
Question Period, I'd like to table the two documents that I referenced today.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will tomorrow move the following resolution:
WHEREAS subsection 16(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
requires that an independent committee, called a Members' Compensation Review
Committee, be appointed at least once during each General Assembly; and
WHEREAS in accordance with subsection 16(2) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Speaker has consulted with the
Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Third Party on the
appointment to the said committee; and
WHEREAS the Government House Leader, Opposition House
Leader and Third Party have agreed with the introduction of this resolution; and
WHEREAS under subsection 16(4) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, a Members' Compensation Review Committee
appointed under this resolution must report to the Speaker on its
recommendations within 120 days of its appointment;
BE IT RESOLVED that Sandra Burke, Kathy LeGrow and
Jeffrey Pardy are appointed to the Members' Compensation Review Committee, with
the appointment to be effective on July 7, 2016; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with section
16 of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act the Members' Compensation
Review Committee shall inquire into and prepare a report respecting the
salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid to the Members
of the House of Assembly and in particular the Committee shall:
(1) Recommend the annual salary for Members of the
House of Assembly; (2) Review and make recommendations regarding the additional
salary provisions for positions identified in subsection 12(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act; (3) Recommend a formula or means for
making annual salary adjustments for salary amounts referenced in clauses 2 and
3 above; (4) Review and make recommendations regarding the current severance pay
policy for Members of the House of Assembly; (5) Review the current provisions
for Members' pensions and provide recommendations for adjustments; (6) Review
and make recommendations regarding the Intra-Constituency Allowance for each
district establishing a schedule to the Member's Resources and Allowances Rules.
This review should take into account the provision of services by Members as a
result of the increase in the size of some districts, as a result of electoral
boundary reform in 2015; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Members' Compensation
Review Committee, as part of its inquires, consult with appropriate persons who
can assist the committee with respect to its required duties and shall;
(7) Consult with Members of the House of Assembly,
review and make recommendations with respect to the Members' Resources and
Allowances Rules, including but not limited to: current accommodation provisions
for Members and whether other alternatives are available from a cost-benefit
perspective; travel and living cost for training and orientation of Members
following general elections and by-elections; clarification of the parameters
regarding usage of the constituency allowance; and clarification of the
parameters for the use of rental cars.
(8) Consult with the House of Assembly Service
regarding issues in administering the current regime as well as impacts,
legislative and otherwise, of proposed recommendations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that research and administrative
support to the Members' Compensation Review Committee will be provided by or
arranged by the House of Assembly Service; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Members' Compensation
Review Committee deliver its report to the Speaker on or before November 4,
2016; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly
Service shall conclude the contractual arrangements required to carry out the
intent of this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
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 federal government should be reducing, not
increasing, Marine Atlantic ferry rates to drive tourism growth and stimulate
the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to press the
province's federal Members of Parliament, the federal government, to reduce
marine ferry rates.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
As my colleague just spoke in Question Period, the
Marine Atlantic rate increase has a great impact on tourism, Mr. Speaker, on the
rubber tire traffic, the travelling public of the province who travel outside
the province for vacations or just to get off the Island. It's such a vital
link.
It also has an impact on our grocery shelves and many
other services we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect to receive. By
these rate increases, it's unfair with such a vital link. We do want the
government to press the federal Members to get those rates reduced.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This petition is 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 many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have an
interest in participating in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to press the
Government of Canada to schedule both preparatory consultations and inquiry
sessions in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador in which grieving
Aboriginal families live.
Mr. Speaker, as a resident of Newfoundland and
Labrador, like so many of us, I've often been very frustrated at the fact that
sometimes Upper Canada seems to think the country stops at Nova Scotia. I think
there are a lot of people in this province who had high expectations, given the
cozy relationship, this would no longer happen. Mr. Speaker, we see evidence of
it continuing to happen today, despite the cozy relationship.
Newfoundland and Labrador has been left off the list of
meetings to seek public input on the design and scope of the National Inquiry
into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. We are part of this
nation, Mr. Speaker, and our indigenous people are just as important as any
other person across this country.
A primary reason for holding this inquiry is to shine a
spotlight on the tragedies, the people and the communities that have for far too
long been ignored, so that justice could be served. It is inexcusable that the
schedule of meetings ignores our province where so many of these tragedies have
occurred.
Indeed, the oversight is all the more difficult to
understand, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the late Loretta Saunders,
whose tragic death was the galvanizing event that triggered this inquiry, was an
indigenous woman who called Newfoundland and Labrador her home. A significant
portion of Newfoundland and Labrador's people identify as indigenous, and they
have an interest and a right to be part of the process of designing and scoping
this inquiry.
Many of Canada's indigenous peoples live in rural
communities and many of these communities in our province are particularly
remote. To be effective, the inquiry must go to places where people live. The
people of these rural communities will surely tell you this and explain why, if
they are given the opportunity to be heard in their communities during the
inquiry's development phase.
Mr. Speaker, our leader has written to Carolyn Bennett,
federal Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, expressing disappointment
on this matter. As the critic for women's policy and an MHA who represents many
Aboriginal constituents, I express my disappointment as well, and urge the
provincial government to call on Ottawa to include Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 the English School Board trustees propose to
close down Holy Cross Junior High school and send students to a distant school;
and
WHEREAS the board has arbitrarily and without
consultation reduced the Holy Cross Junior High school catchment area and
students will have to be bused to a far more distant school; and
WHEREAS Holy Cross Junior High is an important
neighbourhood school with programs, community partnerships and extracurricular
activities designed to meet the particular needs of the inner-city students who
attend it; and
WHEREAS the English School Board trustees are an
appointed body and no longer accountable to the people who elected them; and
WHEREAS the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray
and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that Holy Cross
Junior High school remains open and to immediately arrange for a democratically
elected English School Board.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will every pray.
Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely astounded by the Minister
of Education's response to my questions in Question Period. This is a very
serious, critical issue. And the minister, while in Opposition, a number of
times berated government by the fact that the trustees of the school board, the
amalgamated school boards, were these are his words, Mr. Speaker, his very
words 'Appointed trustees, hand-picked trustees, it really removes
accountability. They are accountable to those who appointed them as opposed to
accountable to those people that elected them.'
This government, Mr. Speaker, keeps talking about
accountability and transparency, yet this is a very clear issue. For the
minister to just flick this off and think he was funny and entertaining in the
House when this affects the lives of students and their families at Holy Cross
Junior High.
Now, as well, Mr. Speaker, it means that almost every
single student at Holy Cross Junior High will have to be bused. There are no
students right now being bused in Holy Cross Junior High. I'm sure the current
Minister of Education is aware of the book
Boston Against Busing. And we know that busing is not good for children,
that it is a last resort.
This minister is going back on his word when he so
vehemently opposed the fact that there is now a board of trustees who are
appointed. Their term had expired, yet he is doing nothing about this. He is
letting them make the most crucial decisions that a school board of trustees can
make, and that's about the closure of schools in our community, neighbourhood
schools.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
To
the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the federal government cannot justify
discriminating Newfoundland and Labrador when determining the dates of the
recreational ground fishery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to be vocal in
calling for the Government of Canada to extend the recreational ground fishery
in Newfoundland and Labrador to promote fairness, safety and tourism to our
province.
Mr. Speaker, this really goes to the heart of who we
are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We settled here to be able to catch a
few fish, and that is what we have done for years and years and years. It is
very important. It is one of the things that I think I enjoy most in life, going
out and being able to catch a cod, because it is what we are as people.
I come from a fishing community, grew up all of my life
around the fishery. I cut out cod tongues. My father used to fight with me
because I wanted to go to the cod trap and haul traps with him when I was so
young. Just to be around the fishery was important to me. But it is important to
so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I know down in Flatrock I have people
who come down and want to go out to the fishery. It is something that they
really, really enjoy. It is part of who we are.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we look at the way today is and
tourism is a very important part of Newfoundland and Labrador. For people to be
able to come here and catch a cod is so important. But more so than anything
else, Mr. Speaker, I watched several times now when I'd see people go out in
small fishing boats and risk their lives because the recreation fishery is based
on a three-week fishery. It is unbelievable. People want to go out and catch a
cod; they feel it's their right. But do you know what? There are times when it
is very, very rough.
I know the wind was blowing last year and I watched a
boat go out the harbour in Flatrock and I said, oh, my God, I hope he don't go.
He did turn around and come back. But we should never be put in that position.
We should never be put in a position where people lose their lives to go catch a
few cod fish that is our God-given right.
I believe we really have to push it to the federal
government and make sure that the cod fishery is fair to us here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, that the dates are changed, that people have the right to go out
and catch the fish when it is a safe time to do so.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A day of firsts: a first question in Question Period
and now my first petition in this hon. House.
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS greater food security ought to be a priority
for Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to set targets for
improving the food security of Newfoundland and Labrador by promoting the
growing in this province of more of the food that we consume.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, food security has to be a high priority
for any government. As it was for our government, I'm sure it will be for the
new government as well. We all know that we have a province that relies heavily
on outside food sources, and we need communities and families in our province to
have access to fresh and nutritious foods. Despite the fact that a lot of effort
has been made to improve the conditions in this province in that regard, there's
still a lot of work to do.
Many families struggle with the cost of purchasing
healthy food. There's an ever-growing reliance on processed as well as fast
foods that are due in part to the rising costs of imported foods. There has been
lots of controversy recently about the cost of fruits and produce, for instance.
The drop in value of the Canadian dollar has resulted
in the skyrocketing costs of nutritious foods. We also know and I know Members
on both sides of the House would acknowledge that we have many health
challenges in this province: diabetes, heart issues, obesity. The government
often has talked about, in recent months, proactive measures. I think all
Members of this House have an obligation to our people to actually put those
words into action.
We have lots of tradition in this province. When you
think about the traditional way of living in Newfoundland and Labrador, we've
made a living from the land and from the sea. Historically, we've grown our own
fresh food and we've eaten our wild protein from fishing and hunting. We don't
do a lot of that in Mount Pearl, but some of my constituents are taking those
activities outside of the geographical confines of the District of Mount Pearl
North.
This historical foundation is something that we can
capitalize on. I urge the government to put into place a local farm-to-table
approach via our agrifoods industry. That will reduce our reliance upon imported
foods and fatty fast foods.
I know government has committed in its Throne Speech to
a new strategy for agriculture. I look forward to supporting that effort because
this is an issue that desperately needs to be further addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant
Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act, Bill 3, and I further move that the
said bill be now read the first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services have leave to introduce a bill, an act entitled, An Act To Amend The
Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act, Bill 3, and
that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister have
leave to introduce Bill 3 and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to
introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The
Parliamentary Secretaries Act, carried. (Bill 3)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary
Secretaries Act. (Bill 3)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act, Bill 4, and I further move that the said bill be now read
the first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration
Act, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall
have leave to introduce Bill 4 and that the bill shall now be read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act, carried. (Bill 4)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 4)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services,
for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Interprovincial
Subpoena Act, Bill 5, and I further move that the said bill be now read the
first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Interprovincial Subpoena
Act, Bill 5, and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall
have leave to introduce Bill 5 and that the said bill now be read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety and Attorney General to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The
Interprovincial Subpoena Act, carried. (Bill 5)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Interprovincial Subpoena Act. (Bill 5)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish
Harvesters Act, Bill 6, and I further move that the said bill be now read the
first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters
Act, Bill 6, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall
have leave to introduce Bill 6 and that the said bill shall now be read a first
time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish
Harvesters Act, carried. (Bill 6)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 6)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I call Order 1, second reading of Bill 1.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, that Bill 1, An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments Commission
And To Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments, be now read the
second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Establish An Independent
Appointments Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For Various
Appointments, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Establish
An Independent Appointments Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For
Various Appointments. (Bill 1)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To say that I am very pleased today to stand in this
hon. House to introduce Bill 1, I would say this is something we have been
thinking about and we have had on our agenda for quite some time. It's gotten
considerable discussion on the election campaign. The feedback has been very
positive.
Essentially what it is, it is an Independent
Appointments Commission and it will require a merit-based process before
appointments. Why is this important, I guess, some people would ask? But if you
think about in Newfoundland and Labrador, our agencies, our boards and
commissions, they actually make up 43 per cent of the total of government's
expenditures. That is 75 per cent of the total public sector employment. So that
is a considerable piece of the activities and the action that goes on within our
province.
To consider that these appointments to those boards,
commissions and agencies should be done in an independent and based on merit is
something that is extremely important to us as a government, because these
associations and these organizations play an essential role in delivering a wide
range of programs and services, including things like health care, education and
housing, and a lot of the services that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians use on
a day-to-day basis.
So to support the work of these agencies, the boards
and the commissions, what we're looking for and what this bill will do is it
will give a consistent, inclusive process, making sure that it's essential to
ensure that the making of the decisions the decision-making process that
impacts the people of our province is done in a very best and a very open and
transparent way, and it's done by individuals who are the most qualified and
experienced people that we have available to us to fill those roles. So it
really raises the concern and raises the level of accountability within our
province.
As I said, we made this commitment during the election
of 2015. Today, we are fulfilling that commitment by taking the necessary steps
that are needed for government to modernize the current process for all those
agencies, boards and commissions. As I said, they take a very active role in our
society and an active role in what they do within our government and within our
province.
We are focused. Our focus is to ensure that the
appointments process is one that is based on merit and appointing the most
qualified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that are available to us.
I believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians support
this approach. I also believe because this is something that you really do not
see in other provinces and within other jurisdictions this is something you
will see other provinces and other areas do something similar by nature, because
this piece of legislation is not something that you could go in and research and
pull off the shelf. It has really not been done to the extent that we are doing
this in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last fall, as we travelled the province and over the
last four years, I would argue, many people have approached me as we talked
often about this and talked about working on their behalf. They made it very
clear to me that those appointments should be merit based, not political based,
not done with a political bias or through a political lens. This here indeed
would be a much better way to attract the most qualified Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who can do the work.
This is why we made the commitment and our government
will change what has become a very tired practice of placing politics before
qualifications. In the past, what we've had is a process that allowed for
entitlements. It allowed for people to actually do favours for their friends, do
favours, in some cases, for their family members. It really was not done on the
merit-based process that it should be where we could get better decision-making
processes within those boards and agencies.
So I am pleased today to announce we are launching this
process. This essentially is step one in clearing a path that we would attract
the most qualified people. They would be encouraged to apply and considered and
then selected based on their merits and their experience.
Today in the House of Assembly we have brought in, and
I am speaking now, to Bill 1. This is a fundamental piece of my work as a
government. Now, there have been some people that have looked at this process
that we've outlined today and they have argued and said we could go further and
on and on it goes. It's like most legislation you see within any government. You
start with a piece of legislation, which is groundbreaking, I would suggest
and of course you could argue, and some will probably argue, that the best thing
to do is go back to the old way of doing things.
As a matter of fact, we had the former premier today
actually suggest this is not the best way of doing things. Well, I would say if
you compare the former administration, their way of doing things, their
practice, based on what we are suggesting here and we would hope to do, I think
this is quite different. This is a much better process. This is a process all
other previous administrations had the opportunity to implement. Often people
talked about it, but there was no action on this until today.
We have made this a priority and we have expressed to
Cabinet we would like to see this move swiftly. This is important. There are
some big decisions to be made in this province. And as fast as we can get this
process established, it is then we will get the people in place to represent us
on those boards and agencies that can do the best job, based on merit, based on
the experience, based on their technical abilities to make decisions and to help
inform Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
What will happen is, upon passing of this legislation,
we will set the wheels in motion to have this independent commission in place.
Once it is in place, Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, will be the first
Canadian province to establish a legislated, merit-based appointments process.
This will be a fully accountable and transparent process, which is the bedrock
of my government and guides us in our actions. This legislation and the
accompanying work reflect on that commitment.
As part of this legislation what you will see is this:
you will see a five-person, non-partisan, Independent Appointments Commission to
be created. So a question would be: Why is it five people, and how do we get to
the start line with those first five people? Well, once we identify who those
suitable candidates will be, those five individuals, we will bring their names
forward to this House of Assembly where there will be a vote among all Members.
This team will review candidates and recommend the three most qualified
individuals, adding a level of independent review to the government appointment
process.
Once we bring the five names to this floor, each and
every single Member in this House of Assembly will have an opportunity to say
aye or nay to support those individuals or not. This will be the opportunity
because this will give you your say in the selection of the Independent
Appointments Commission.
There are five people, five names that will be brought
forward. From that, the chair of this commission will then use three people as
part of the selection committee for the individuals that would be considered or
screened through this. The Public Service Commission, of course, will play a
huge role as well.
I have insisted that the members of the commission be
accountable, have the necessary qualifications and use their experience and
adhere to the objective to uphold the principle of a non-partisan, merit-based
appointment process.
You could find yourself at some point where you have
five individuals in what is relatively a small province and people know each
other. If at any time any of those five individuals feel that they would be in a
conflict or should not be part of this selection process, well, then they would
declare that conflict and exclude themselves from that.
So you will see three people that would be included:
the chair and two others. Even at some point the chair might decide that he's
not appropriately placed to it. So they have the flexibility, two extra people,
two extra commissioners, that we would use those three people then.
The first step would be that the Public Service
Commission would screen out the list of candidates. There will be a website that
we put in place for people to put their own names forward, based on the criteria
and the skills and the technical needs that this would be developed and put in
place by the various departments. The departments will look at the positions
that will need to be filled. They will put the necessary skills, what you would
need to do the job, at this particular board, agency or commission. You could
actually then self-nominate. That would be put into the selection process.
The Public Service Commission would be the first point
of entry. Then any names that would come out of this would be given to the
Independent Appointments Commission and they would do further screening, further
vetting and then there would be up to three names that would go to Cabinet as a
recommendation.
Added to this, they will also recommend individuals for
the head of the province's statutory offices. These are people like the Child
and Youth Advocate, the Privacy Commissioner, the Consumer Advocate and so on.
These are people, too, that we will add to this process, once again taking the
politics out of some of those appointments.
That's not to say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have
some good people already in those positions. We have Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who have done a great job for many years, but it's been through a
very different process. I think this particular process we are outlining today
adds a very unique touch to this and it's one that we are very proud of.
The agencies, the boards and commissions, it will be
tier one. When you think about that there are about 1,200 board members that
could be affected here or that would be affected here and well over 200 every
year. So you can tell there are quite a few people who are impacted by this.
As I said, they represent a large part of the work that
has happened within government; 43 per cent of the total expenditures and 75 per
cent of our total public employment. So it is a big task when you look at the
numbers of boards and commissions and agencies that we will be filling those
positons on. These are the tier one agencies. So you say really what is tier
one? How do you define a tier one? What makes tier one different than, let's
say, a tier two or so on?
Well, these would be the boards that would actually
handle quite a bit of money. They would have big influence on the affairs and
the future of our province. They handle quite a bit of the activity, as I say.
They would be boards like Nalcor, like NLC, like Housing and so on, many, many
boards and they are listed in this piece of legislation.
They are chosen to be tier one. It's based on a number
of factors, as I said, including their authority to make decisions. We have
empowered many of those individuals to make some very important decisions on
behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they impact the public. Their
decisions impact the public in a significant way.
Some examples, as I just mentioned, that being Nalcor,
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the Liquor
Corporation, MMSB, the College of the North Atlantic, Regional Health
Authorities and so on. So you can tell just by the magnitude of the boards I
just mentioned the number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador they impact.
For these organizations, the Public Service Commission
will provide a list of individuals to the Independent Appointments Commission.
What would happen is if you were interested in being a chair of a health
authority or so on, you would submit your name, self-nominate. There would be
people, I'm sure I would expect Members in this House would do their own and
encourage people and recommend individuals within our province to think about
putting their name forward.
The names would be recommended. You would put your name
forward to the Public Service Commission. The first step vetted there. Once you
identify the group that would have the technical experience, merit based, to
move on to the Independent Appointments Commission, well that would be step one,
and the Independent Appointments Commission would be step two.
Once the Independent Appointments Commission has made
their decision, they would make their recommendations to Cabinet. The final
decision would be made there with the authority on these decisions. We've been
receiving some questions today such as why won't you just not let Cabinet make
any of those decisions? The recommendations would go up and the Independent
Appointments Commission would not really appoint three at all; they would just
appoint those individuals.
Mr. Speaker, we go through an elections in our province
right now and the authority and I heard it just yesterday in this House here
when many Members opposite said get on, govern, do the job of government, do
your job. Well, part of doing your job is making sure that you have the right
people in place.
The selection committee through a two-step selection
committee, one through the Public Service Commission, then into the Independent
Appointments Commission and they make the recommendations to Cabinet. So then
they would say the Cabinet has the last say. They're just going to give people
the boot. They're not going to accept the list from the group that we had a
discussion for in this House of Assembly.
You think about the message that would send to those
people who volunteered, those five people, not paid, as I said, not compensated
for the work they do. I can tell you, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that I
know, they will tell that Cabinet where to go because this is where they would
be going after putting in hours and hours of volunteer work, making
recommendations to a Cabinet. If at any time Cabinet was repeatedly rejecting
those names, well, I'll guarantee you, I'm willing to bet now that those people
would not stay there. That would ruin the integrity.
The people that I know on this side of the House, this
is not where they're going. This is not where we're going with this. It would
be, if at all, a very rare occurrence when you would see names that would be
selected from the IAC, that those names would be rejected.
The objective here is to help us with a selection
committee so that we can put the best people in place to help inform Cabinet, so
Cabinet Members, like we've seen in the past, cannot go out and tap on the
shoulders of their friends, call up their buddies, call up their family members
in some cases, and say, come on, I've got a little job here, you're entitled to
it because you've helped on my campaign, or you've done this here, or you've
done something for us so it's now my time to give back to you. This selection
process here takes all of that out of the way.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Merit based.
PREMIER BALL:
It
is merit based.
Our objective here is to give Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians the confidence in the actions of their government. It is now time
to take the politics out of these government appointments. It ensures
accountability, it ensures transparency and there will be an open communication
process.
What happens there is on an annual basis. What you will
see is an activity report that will come to the floor of this House of Assembly
that will give us some idea of the work this commission has done. It will be
here on this floor that that report would be submitted.
Following the Cabinet and ministerial appointments, the
names of the individuals then would be posted on the website. An Order in
Council would also be issued for appointments made by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council which are available for the public online. These names will then be made
public once the recommendations and the selection has been made.
These appointments will be fully public. There will
also be an activity report, as I just mentioned, in accordance with the
Transparency and Accountability Act.
A review of the Independent Appointments Commission;
there would be an automatic review of the Independent Appointments Commission
after five years. So let's not lose sight of that. On an annual basis you get
your activity report, and then there's an automatic review of the Independent
Appointments Commission after three years.
They are appointed for three years. So the first
appointment you would see Independent Appointments Commission, their names
would come here for a debate on this floor. So your first commission gets put in
place. Subsequent commissions would be this or if somebody resigned for some
reason or had to move on, which will happen over time. What will happen is you
can be reappointed for a second three years but any new Independent Appointments
Commission will go through the Independent Appointments Commission process
themselves. So there are lots and lots of belts and braces, as they say, here to
be open and accountable to the people of our province.
When I talk about how we would see vacancies, of course
this will happen over time, if indeed through the Independent Appointments
Commission. So this actually closes the gap and provides a process for even that
to occur.
To support the Independent Appointments Commission,
there's a group that I really want to spend some time talking about because
they've done a great job providing a very great service for the people of our
province and that's the Public Service Commission. They will serve as the
secretariat and will work with government departments to develop skill and
qualification processes for each agency, board and commission.
What this group will do, they have the knowledge of all
our boards, all our commissions and our agencies. They will develop a profile so
that anyone who's interested in giving back to their province in a volunteer
capacity, or in some cases serving on those boards, what they would do is put
their name forward along with their resume, as an example. It is there, then,
that the Public Service Commission will do the job that they have been doing for
years, and will do a very good job in making sure those people have the right
skills, merit based, for this appointment.
By availing of the experience of the Public Service
Commission we are creating an independent commission process that won't incur
costs associated with recruiting additional employees, finding office space or
purchasing equipment. What we did not want to do in all of this was put a layer
of expense on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We used what's working for us already: the Public
Service Commission. It is working; it has the resources within that to be the
secretariat for this Independent Appointments Commission.
We will use the expertise, the equipment and the people
who are already there, rather than go out and set up a layer of bureaucracy. It
is something that we did not want to do. This is a very cost-efficient way to do
this and we still have the independency of the Public Service Commission. I
would say it's not a very popular room to be in, if you had someone on this side
of the House suggesting we should spend more money. I assure you that the
current Minister of Finance would be clamping down on that anyway.
The Public Service Commission Act they protect the
merit principle in all appointments. They do this already. There is legislation
in place for them to do this. They protect the merit principle in all
appointments and promotions within the public service and are, therefore,
already well positioned to take on the additional role in this process that we
are suggesting here today.
Departments and agencies are required to adhere to
standards and procedures. We already know that. These procedures are outlined
and in many cases it is already publicly known. The Public Service Commission
will hold an open call for applications through its website and social media to
seek qualified candidates. As we know right now and we see this with the
Government Renewal Initiative we are seeing many, many people reaching out on
our Dialogue App, through email, through our website and engaging in the work of
government these days, putting forward many ideas.
What we would see here, in an electronic sense, is a
website where people can bring their resumes forward. You'd create that library
of people, those long lists of names; people who are interested in giving back
and feel qualified to give back to their province so that we can get better
informed, better people making the decisions that impact the lives of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The Public Service Commission, as I said, will hold
this open call. This is ongoing because what we see at various times in boards
and agencies, the board members expire at different times in different years and
different times of the year, as an example. So all the information based on when
terms expire, what is required for individuals to serve in these capacities
all that information would be available on the website.
You could also look at using platforms, of course,
within our own communities and within our own business and labour organizations.
What happens is many of those boards and agencies impact the business community.
They impact organizations that advocate for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and
our communities there as well. It is important they be part of all of this as
well.
Through them, and links through their own websites, as
an example, we can actually broaden the reach substantially by adding to the
networks that already exist within our province. Mr. Speaker, the boards and
agencies such as I mentioned earlier, many of the groups that work and provide
services such as advisory councils well, just as an example and disciplinary
boards, they also go through the Public Service Commission that we are seeing
right now.
I've talked a bit about tier one. Then we have another
group which would be tier two. There is a long list. If you go through the
legislation you would see various pieces of legislation that actually connect to
the boards and agencies within our province. These lists are extremely long.
Appointment to the tier-two bodies will be subject to the Public Service
Commission as well, who will then make recommendations to the respective
minister for his or her approval.
As mentioned earlier, the process for tier-two
agencies, boards and commissions will also be based on merit, but I want to be
very clear tier two will not go to the Independent Appointments Commission. The
reason for that is just really the magnitude of people and the number of names,
and based on the level of budgeting process, as I said. I mentioned earlier the
impact our tier-one agencies have. Tier-two agencies are extremely important to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They do a great job. In many cases,
volunteering as well.
The tier-two process will be through the Public Service
Commission where they will be screened there. It would be literally impossible
to put all tier-one and tier-two appointments through the Independent
Appointments Commission at this time without adding significant, significant
resources financial resources as well as human resources to this process, I
say, Madam Speaker.
In addition to building a skill and credential profile
for appointments under this process, the Public Service Commission will be
expected to conduct all necessary background checks for recommended appointees.
They will also put in place a process to report any conflicts of interest. As I
said, there are more than 1,200 positions based on the previous years. We expect
about 250 appointments annually, and that's to tier-one boards. You can imagine
what it would be with tier-two boards added to this.
Madam Speaker, you can tell that this is a very
extensive process, one that we are very proud of here, very proud to introduce.
I would say that this is really step one. Like any legislation we would see that
makes it to the floor of this House of Assembly, this is, indeed, a
groundbreaking piece of legislation.
I would imagine, over time, legislation evolves. Once
you get a chance, as I said in the interview today, to test drive it, there may
be ways that over time it will change and evolve and be improved upon. Right now
we are very pleased that we are to the start line, which is something that has
never been done by any other administration in the history of our province.
We have now taken the steps to take the politics out of
political appointments. It is fair. It is a measured process, one that will
provide this. It will provide greater consistency, greater transparency, improve
organizational performance. You will have better people who are more
experienced, merit based and the technical experience to make the decisions that
are so important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I also believe that it will enhance the quality of
public services and the public confidence. I believe that we will see simply
because people now understand that they have a chance to serve Newfoundland and
Labrador, people that have often felt because they were not of a particular
political stripe, that they had no chance. This here opens the door.
This process opens the door for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to be engaged, to have their say and be able to use their ability
and the experience that they would have, no matter where they live, and give
them the opportunity to do their job and return some service back to our
province.
I believe it provides a meaningful experience for our
appointees. The process will be a good one. Through the debate and I look
forward to the debate and the questions that we will see in this House of
Assembly, Madam Speaker.
So debate, I guess, will continue and the decision will
be made. We have some important decisions that will need to be made impacting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I look forward to the debate on Bill 1.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 1, which, in
a new session of the Legislature, tends to be the administration's flagship
piece of legislation. It sets the tone for the administration and for the
session of the House of Assembly. The Premier and several ministers this morning
acknowledged that this was legislation that they're really proud of and it will
be one of the hallmarks of their government.
We were briefed on the bill this morning, and I want to
thank those from Executive Council and from the Public Service Commission who
provided us with a briefing on the bill. Several Members of our caucus also had
an opportunity to attend a news conference that the Premier held earlier today
where he and his ministers outlined this bill and the reasons for it.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, while I understand the
new government is very proud of this piece of legislation, we do have some major
concerns about the bill in its present form. The beauty of this legislative
process is that there'll be lots of opportunity for debate and discussion and
ideas, and perhaps we'll even be able to amend the bill to make it work. We're
not standing today to say that we're opposed I'm not standing today to say
that I'm opposed to some kind of independent appointments process.
The concept is an interesting concept; I'm all for
openness and greater transparency. I'm a big believer in open government,
despite the fact that it's seemingly not a priority for the new government, as
the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement has acknowledged.
I think a new name for this bill is actually in order,
Madam Speaker. It will be ruled out of order, but in my mind it's in order. An
act to justify Liberal political and patronage appointments seems like the more
appropriate name for the piece of legislation.
What was most frightening about what I heard this
morning
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
KENT:
And
despite the heckling, I'll make some general comments about what I observed
about the legislation and then I'll go into more detail during my time today
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
So
when somebody submits to the Public Service Commission and says, I want to get
involved in one of these agencies or boards or commissions, beyond the point of
submitting their application, there's absolutely nothing that's public or
transparent about the process. Beyond that, it's a secret, confidential process.
That immediately, from our perspective, sounded the alarm bells.
What we're going to have is a five-person commission
that's basically made up of political appointees. So those five people will be
identified by Cabinet and then we'll get to rubberstamp it in the House, but
government, of course, has a strong mandate and they decide what bills get
passed in this House. And they have a majority, which allows them that right, so
it's really a formality that we would have a debate on those appointments in
this House of Assembly.
I'm just going to highlight some of the things that are
most alarming about the bill. Then if time permits today, I'll hopefully get to
go into some further detail. I would encourage hon. Members to have a look at
the Public Service Commission Act as
well, because this Bill 1 makes major changes to the
Public Service Commission Act. In fact, section 19 onward in this
bill is all about changes to the Public
Service Commission Act.
What's really concerning, though, is that buried in
this piece of legislation is a very large schedule called Schedule C. It lists
something like 130 agencies, 130 boards, 130 commissions, 130 committees that
will be exempt from the new Independent Appointments Commission that the
government is creating.
The Public Service Commission will play a role.
Granted, the Premier acknowledged that today, but this wonderful, new,
supposedly Independent Appointments Commission will not have anything to do with
130 appointments related to agencies, boards and commissions. The appointments
for those 130 agencies, boards and commissions will not be subject to this new
Independent Appointments Commission. That's a real concern.
For that select group of tier one as the Premier
describes those tier-one positions that will go to this supposedly Independent
Appointments Commission, it's not about making sure we get the best person for
the job. It's not ultimately about the merit-based process that the government
is suggesting. If you wanted the best person for the job, you'd have a process
that identified the best person for the job, but instead the Independent
Appointments Commission will recommend three names. They won't rank them. They
won't prioritize them. They'll simply submit those names to Cabinet.
Cabinet ministers and the Premier made it clear today
that there will be no disclosure of who those three names are or what process
Cabinet goes through to pick among the three, which despite the extensive
process by this Independent Appointments Commission made up of, I'm sure,
well-intentioned volunteers who are going to do their best to do a good job
despite that whole process, at the end of the day nothing is really changing,
Madam Speaker. The government, the Cabinet, behind closed doors, will make the
appointments.
If you really wanted the best person for the job,
wouldn't you ensure you had a process that identified the best person for the
job? So you're going to get three, presumably, qualified people. Because I'm
sure the commission would do a good job of identifying good people; let's assume
that much. But at the end of the day, the decision about who gets appointed
among those people that are submitted on the list well, the list is a secret.
The process for selecting the person from that list is a secret. At the end of
the day there will be no transparency around that and we cannot at all have
assurance that the best person has been selected. If we were truly committed to
a merit-based process that identified the best person for the job, why wouldn't
we have a process that identified the best person for the job, as opposed to a
list of names that Cabinet can secretly pick from?
Again, I need to make it clear that we're talking about
two lists of agencies, boards and commissions. The ones that were described
today as tier one, the Independent Appointments Commission will touch those and
will make a recommendation of three names, not ranked. They'll present three
names and then there will be a secret process by Cabinet to determine who they
appoint. We'll never know what the recommendation was, but we will know
ultimately who gets appointed, of course.
Then the real concern is that there's a tier-two list
of 130 agencies, boards and commissions where the Public Service Commission will
just provide, at a minister's request, a long list of people that are
recommendable not recommended, but recommendable. A minister will probably
encourage people to apply, logically. They will go to the Public Service
Commission and say, give us a list of everybody who is recommendable, who the
Public Service Commission has deemed appropriate, and then they'll pick whoever
they want.
What was also suggested in the briefing this morning is
that many of those appointments, Madam Speaker, will not be subject to any
Cabinet process whatsoever. Individual ministers will simply make those
appointments at will. Some specifically have to be appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, so those presumably would continue to go to Cabinet. For
many other appointments that are of a routine nature, it's quite likely that
ministers will simply do their own thing, get the long list from the Public
Service Commission and make an appointment.
How is that independent? How is that merit based? How
has that done anything to actually improve the process? I respectfully suggest,
Madam Speaker, that it doesn't improve the process at all. I think the attempt
to create an independent process is a good thing. The attempt to make sure that
the process is as open and transparent and as inclusive as possible is a good
thing, but this bill falls short in so many ways.
The Premier today accused I don't know someone on
this side of questioning the integrity of the Public Service Commission. I can
assure you that Members in our caucus have great respect and a good
understanding of the work of the Public Service Commission, given some of us
have been around government and around the various government departments for a
while.
The Public Service Commission does good work; there's
no doubt about that. But what we're opening the door to is the risk of political
interference in a process that has been very respected and respectable to date.
I don't think any political involvement in the Public Service Commission is a
good thing, and I'm surprised Members would suggest it is.
Another major, major concern with this piece of
legislation is the non-binding nature of the whole thing. At the end of the day,
despite the smoke and mirrors and despite the illusion of something that's
non-political and independent, we've got a process that in every respect is
entirely non-binding. So for tier-one appointments that actually do go through
the Independent Appointments Commission unlike the 130 agencies and boards and
commissions that won't for those that do, at the end of the day there's
nothing binding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
KENT:
Obviously my criticism is upsetting Members opposite. But to see the Premier and
Members on his front bench heckling during this debate on his flagship piece of
legislation, Madam Speaker, I think it highlights some of the concerns that we
do have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
The
Premier went as far today, twice in his news conference today, to suggest we
should rush this through the House of Assembly. At two different points in the
news conference today, and perhaps the New Democratic Party made the same
observation I know they were well represented at the news conference as well
it was suggested it would be up to us to move this through the House quickly
because government wants to get on with it. I think that's very concerning. I
think the attitude that seems to be expressed here today from across the House
is very concerning.
The fact that every aspect of this will be non-binding
and at the end of the day Cabinet or ministers can do as they please means there
is nothing independent about it, Madam Speaker. There's nothing non-political
about it, and there's nothing merit based about it at the end of the day if
Cabinet can do what it wants. I respect the fact government is elected to govern
and Cabinet has to make decisions about who to appoint to different offices and
roles. I respect that.
There are all kinds of reasons why you would appoint or
not appoint somebody to a specific role. That is the right and the prerogative
of government; I acknowledge that. But I do think the concept of an independent
process for appointments and opening it up is a good thing as well. This bill
does absolutely nothing, Madam Speaker, absolutely nothing, to take the politics
out of appointments.
This new Independent Appointments Commission, or IAC as
I'm sure during this debate it will become known we have lots of acronyms in
the House of Assembly and throughout government. This new Independent
Appointments Commission isn't at all independent. Government controls who's on
it. Beyond that, at the end of the day they have no teeth.
Any of the recommendations they make are non-binding.
They have zero authority to make appointments. So isn't it incredibly ironic
that the flagship piece of legislation, Bill 1 of the new administration, the
very first campaign promise that was made by our new government was about
creating something that was independent and would take the politics out of
appointments.
Well, Bill 1 ensures that politics always, always,
always trumps process and trumps any kind of independent process, Madam Speaker.
Bill 1 ensures there will always be it actually puts into legislation a
process that ensures the decisions will be political at the end of the day, and
politicians behind closed doors in the Cabinet room or ministers in their own
offices by themselves will make appointments.
I suspect that like the Premier did at length today
will say previous governments have done badly and we're going to improve the
process. The problem with that argument, Madam Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Speaker is having trouble hearing the Member.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm having trouble hearing myself because of the noise,
laughter and heckling opposite, which, I guess, sets the tone for this new
administration that was supposed to take a new approach to the Legislature and
how business would be done, and to appointments. Unfortunately, at the end of
the day we now have a bill that will ensure politics always trumps process.
That's really, really unfortunate.
I think, Madam Speaker, during the course of debate,
and perhaps because they're so upset, I've struck a nerve. I think during the
course of this debate we will discover, and people in the province will
conclude, that this is smoke and mirrors. There's nothing non-partisan about it.
There's nothing non-political about it. There's nothing independent about it.
Madam Speaker, what is non-partisan
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
What is non-partisan about allowing Cabinet and
individual Cabinet ministers, in the case of the big tier-two list, to hand pick
from a list of candidates? How is that non-partisan if politicians are making
those decisions at the end of the day behind closed doors? How is that
independent? Why bother, if, at the end of the day, nothing is really changing?
It was interesting today to hear ministers and the
Premier talk about the need for an exhaustive communications process around this
bill. I suspect they're going to have some really careful communication
stickhandling to do on this piece of legislation.
On one hand, there is a need for extensive
communications; yet, on the other hand, the Premier of the province on Bill 1,
on the flagship piece of legislation, asked the Opposition Parties in this House
on two occasions today in his news conference to rush the process, to
actually ensure that this debate doesn't take a long time because they want to
get on with it.
It is what it is. Well, from our perspective that's not
good enough. It isn't what it is. We have to challenge. We have to ask
questions. I'm all for making our processes better, but this bill really falls
short in so many ways.
The Premier and ministers were challenged repeatedly
today about the fact that Cabinet can simply make appointments. Even though
we're establishing legislation, amending the Public Service Commission Act and
going through a process in this House where these commissioners will be formally
appointed, at the end of the day Cabinet can still do what it wants. That is
outlined in the legislation.
Do you know what the government's response to that was
over and over again this morning, Madam Speaker? They said we don't expect it to
be a regular occurrence. So it will happen, it is bound to happen, but we are
not going to do it too often. Just trust us and we'll make the decisions, follow
the process and at the end of the day still appoint who we want when we do
follow the process.
The Finance Minister described this bill as significant
change. The challenge at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, is that there's no
evidence to suggest that this is any kind of real change at all. If at the end
of the day the decisions are still going to be made behind closed doors, in
secret by Cabinet, and none of the work that this new commission is going to do
is binding and there are going to be 130 agencies, boards and commissions in
this province that aren't even subject to that process I don't consider that
to be significant change.
For a government that claims to be open and says that
they're going to change the way government does business, even though they've
placed the Open Government Initiative on hold, the list of three names that's
going to be put forward by the Independent Appointments Commission for those
tier-one groups that are listed at the back of the bill, they're not going to be
made public. Unless the individual candidates themselves decide to disclose that
they were shortlisted and put forward by the independent commission, we'll have
no way to know what names were considered and what process was followed, if any
process was followed, to select the successful candidate. We won't even know if
one of those three people has been selected. Cabinet can still choose to ignore
that process, and there's no mechanism for that to be disclosed.
I do feel this is an important point, Madam Speaker. If
Cabinet chooses to ignore the three names and just go its own way, it rejects
all three, appoints somebody else, throws out the recommendation, whatever the
case may be, there is absolutely no mechanism in this piece of legislation for
that to be disclosed. We will never know.
The Premier's response should concern every Member of
this House. The Premier's response should concern the public as well. His
solution to that gaping hole that was identified after a quick review of the
legislation for the first time this morning, the Premier of the province said
this morning he expects the independent appointment commissioners to complain,
to make noise publicly, or to resign if Cabinet doesn't respect their wishes. So
he expects that will happen rarely. He expects it would be rare, but he expects
the Independent Appointments Commission that will ultimately be rubber-stamped
by this very Legislature, should resign or make noise publicly if the process
isn't respected. Now, that doesn't seem like a logical, or a fair, or a
reasonable or a respectful solution, Madam Speaker.
The bill, Bill 1 and I encourage members of the
public to go online and read the bill we have it in front of us, hopefully. I
would encourage the public to read the language in the bill. There are two
instances in the bill itself in the language of the legislation that clearly
states Cabinet can ignore the recommendations. So this is independent and open
and non-political, but twice in the piece of legislation it says Cabinet can do
what it wants.
I'd encourage people to have a close look at the
language that is suggested. Some of the arguments against this bill are actually
just written in the bill. That's a perfect example where in two instances it
says Cabinet can just do what it wants. That would suggest, Madam Speaker and
I hate to have to suggest it, in all honesty, but that would suggest this is
simply window dressing, that this simply is smoke and mirrors.
Really, this is a bill that's shrouded in Cabinet
control and secrecy. Again, I respect the fact government is elected to govern,
and this government has a very strong, clear mandate from the people of the
province. We respect that. But you cannot argue this is non-political and
independent if it's still all about Cabinet control and a secret process.
When questioned this morning in the news conference,
and hopefully based on how the news conference went, I doubt the full thing
will be posted online for people to see. I hope it is, because the Premier's
response to that question for media about Cabinet control and secrecy was:
that's the way things work. I'm quoting the Premier of the province, Madam
Speaker that's the way things work.
There was an impressive lineup this morning. Clearly,
government is committed to this piece of legislation. The Finance Minister, who
is responsible for the Public Service Commission, as well as the Government
House Leader, answered questions and gave a detailed presentation with the
Premier this morning.
The Minister Responsible for the Office of Public
Engagement was noticeably absent from the news conference. I recognize that
given the size of Cabinet and the reduced number of Members in this House,
Cabinet ministers have quite a burden. They're carrying multiple departments in
some cases and it's undoubtedly a heavy load. For something that's supposed to
be about openness and transparency and changing the way government does
business, this feels like it could be a really good Open Government Initiative.
Unfortunately, the Minister Responsible for the Office
of Public Engagement was absent. In fact, I'm told that the only thing going on
in the Office of Public Engagement these days is the Government Renewal
Initiative consultation process. I think we've got 13 or 14 more months to go of
that process, so very concerning and I think worth noting.
Madam Speaker, how can you say that you're taking
politics out of a process, if, at the end of the day, as outlined in several
places in this legislation, Cabinet can simply do what it wants. I don't think
you're taking politics out of anything, if, at the end of the day, Cabinet
ministers are going to make decisions behind closed doors from a list of people
that's not even ranked by this independent process.
What I saw this morning was rather concerning. The
government is setting the stage already to make exceptions and to set up
circumstances whereby they can simply bypass this process or throw out the
recommendations. Repeatedly, we heard language like extraordinary circumstances
and rare occurrences and exceptions will be very rare. It was said in this hon.
House. It was said in the news conference today. We even heard that kind of talk
in our briefing this morning.
It's great that government wants to get on with it and
wants to rush the debate on this bill, but that should be cause for concern as
well, Madam Speaker. The fact that the Premier of the province would suggest
twice in a news conference that we should simply get on with it and move this
process quickly, should cause people to reflect on why that would be.
Madam Speaker, if all decisions, as a result of this
new process that's not really that new or different if all those decisions
come down to politicians behind closed doors, how can you ever claim that that's
non-political?
Madam Speaker, again the Premier kept saying that the
members of this commission should resign if Cabinet doesn't respect the process.
That's yet another red flag. So on one hand we should rush this, on another hand
we're hearing lots about rare occurrences and exceptional circumstances. There's
nothing binding about the legislation. The Premier says, well, the members of
the commission should just resign if the process is not respected. If you don't
like our decisions you can resign. That doesn't feel like a non-political
process and independence to me.
Relying on commissioners resigning to ensure the
integrity of the process, that's what the Premier is suggesting we do, Madam
Speaker, and I find it offensive to be honest. You can't possibly say that
anything about this is independent. You can't possibly say that anything about
this is non-political.
Cabinet gets to pick names from a secret list. One of
the ministers this morning, I believe it was the Finance Minister, and the
Premier said it in debate today, talked about how proud they were of this piece
of work, the Finance Minister said. Well, Madam Speaker, I'd suggest this is a
piece of work, and there's a lot more work to be done before this bill should
ever pass in this House of Assembly. There are some major concerns and major
holes that I think need to be addressed, one of the biggest being that there's
130 agencies and boards that are exempt from the process.
One of the questions the media asked today, I think for
good reason, is: Can we expect that not a single high-profile Liberal will be
appointed to this five member commission? Unfortunately, the Premier wouldn't
answer that question. He did make a comment about looking for the best people to
serve, but there was no commitment to not appoint high-profile Liberals.
Maybe there are some high-profile Liberals that are
perfectly qualified to do this work. I'm not sure one should suggest that they
should be exempt from being part of the process just because of a past or
present political affiliation. We live in a relatively small place, and we have
lots of examples even in this hon. House of people wearing multiple political
stripes. I'm not sure of the fact that somebody was once or is currently
associated with a political party be a reason to completely disqualify them from
being appointed either. That doesn't make a lot of sense, Madam Speaker.
One of the questions that was also asked by the media
today was: Can you tell us what agencies and boards and commissions are not
covered by this legislation? There's a long list at the back of tier-one
agencies, boards and commissions. In the big Schedule C, in the middle of the
bill, there's a whole bunch of other committees and boards and commissions and
agencies, but we could not get an answer from government in the news conference
today. The media could not get an answer around which agencies, boards and
commissions would not be covered.
It was certainly our sense from talking to officials in
the briefing that it was the intention to capture them all. So I respect that
and I accept that at face value. I just thought it was interesting that the
question wasn't answered at the news conference today.
One of the things that trumped this morning was that
this will all be no cost. We are not going to pay people to do this work. These
five people will appoint hundreds they won't appoint anybody. I am sorry,
Madam Speaker; I misspoke. They won't appoint anybody. They will make lots of
recommendations that may or may not be accepted. They will do it out of the
goodness of their hearts. They might get their gas covered or hotel nights, if
required, or meals, but they won't be compensated for their time in any way,
shape or form.
I get that there is limited cost then to those folks
doing that work. But is government suggesting that now the Public Service
Commission is going to be involved in potentially thousands of appointments? If
you look at the list of hundreds of committees, agencies, boards, councils and
commissions, they are going to be involved in screening potentially hundreds if
not thousands of applicants. There is going to be I would say on a monthly
basis looking at that list dozens and dozens of appointments and processes.
Are we suggesting, are Members opposite suggesting, is the Finance Minister
suggesting that the Public Service Commission already has that much extra
capacity that there are no additional resources required to administer something
like this? That is cause for concern as well, Madam Speaker.
From what I can recall, the Public Service Commission,
which does really good work, doesn't have a lot of people sitting around looking
for work to do. There is plenty of work. With the upcoming layoffs, perhaps the
Public Service Commission won't be as busy. Maybe they'll be involved in
supporting some of that process with the Human Resource Secretariat. But to
suggest that the Public Service Commission has the capacity to all of this work
with no added cost, I find that hard to believe, Madam Speaker. We are talking
about thousands of appointments. What is suggested if there is no added cost, no
additional burden, then that can all be done with existing resources. I think
some more questions need to be asked about that as well.
Madam Speaker, I was disappointed that the Premier
would accuse us of questioning the integrity of the Public Service Commission.
It is not the Public Service Commission that we are worried about; it is the
fact that this is really just a facade and the end of the day the decisions will
be made by politicians behind closed doors
The Premier today in the debate in second reading, less
than an hour ago, suggested that previous governments in fairness, he wasn't
specific about the most recent previous government, but he did say the previous
governments probably appointed family members to some of these roles.
Now, Madam Speaker, I recognize that governments over
time have appointed people who have been involved maybe in the political party,
maybe they've been supporters of a given administration, and like I said
somebody shouldn't be disqualified from a process because of their political
affiliation. I think that would fly in the face of a process that's independent,
but to suggest that previous governments appointed family members, for the
Premier of the province to make that kind of statement in debate today is
disturbing like lots of aspects of what we've heard so far today.
This legislation was described by, I believe, the
Premier as being groundbreaking. I'm not sure, Madam Speaker. I would suggest
that we're not on solid ground at all with this piece of legislation and that
much debate is going to be required in this hon. House. Perhaps we can fix the
bill. Perhaps if we're truly committed to being non-partisan and non-political,
perhaps we can work together in this House and come up with a bill that does
establish a process that's objective and independent and transparent, and
reduces the amount of political involvement and even interference.
It seems like a great opportunity to take the politics
out of that process. Why couldn't we work together? If we want those five
commissioners to be independent, why couldn't all parties play a role in
identifying who those commissioners should be, as opposed to simply
rubber-stamping the government decision in this House? Wouldn't this be a great
piece of legislation to send to a committee?
I know in the Liberal election platform there was a
real strong commitment made to improving how this House does business and
ensuring that there are effective legislative committees so that all Members of
this House, people who have lots of passion and energy and skills and
perspective and experience, can all play a meaningful role in advancing
legislation and crafting legislation and making changes to legislation that
comes before this House.
So wouldn't this be a great opportunity to strike a
committee of this Legislature to look at this legislation? If we are actually
committed to making it non-political and non-partisan, then why not have Members
of the governing party who would logically have a majority on the committee
anyway it makes sense; they've been elected to govern. Why not have
representation from the Progressive Conservative caucus and the New Democratic
caucus to actually make some changes to this bill and maybe get it to a point
where we could unanimously support it?
It's early days. We only saw the bill late yesterday.
We received a briefing several hours ago. We attended a news conference at 12:30
today. So we need to take some more time to analyze this bill, which is another
reason why the suggestion that we should rush it through the House is kind of
bizarre.
Let's consider the possibility of striking a committee
to take a close look at this. Government can control the committee. Government
sets the legislative agenda. Government can have the majority of Members on the
committee. But why not involve Members of the Opposition caucuses in reviewing
this bill and trying to make it work? I think the concept is commendable. I have
no problem with exploring some kind of independent non-partisan process for
appointments, but I think this bill falls short in many ways.
I'd like to go in a little more detail, Madam Speaker.
Given the sentiments expressed by the Premier that this process will be rushed I
want to take advantage of the time I do have, my only opportunity in second
reading, to speak to this legislation.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
KENT:
Yes, the House Leader acknowledges that we will have time in Committee. I look
forward to that. That, as he well acknowledges, I'm sure he will acknowledge, is
a great part of the process because it does allow us to get into the
nitty-gritty.
Maybe we can make the bill better. Maybe we can address
some of the concerns that I've raised. Maybe Members opposite will be willing to
speak to some of those concerns we've raised and maybe work with us to find
solutions when we get to the Committee stage, so I do look forward to that. We
will take time to analyze the bill and figure out if there is any way to make it
work, but some of the concerns that have been identified are quite significant.
All the bill does it does not ensure independent
appointments. It's a bill that serves to create a commission that will make
recommendations. They're not ranked. They're not binding. They're not even going
to be publicly disclosed. Ultimately, the decisions will still be made at the
Cabinet table.
If the Liberal government was serious about taking
politics out of appointments, which is something they campaigned heavily on,
promised to do they said they were going to make sure that happened and
politicians would be removed from the process why wouldn't they take the
politicians out of the process altogether perhaps? Maybe we can come up with a
process that ensures an Independent Appointments Commission that actually gets
to make appointments and not just recommendations that can be ignored by
Cabinet. It doesn't take the politics out of appointments as promised.
I said smoke and mirrors earlier, Madam Speaker, and I
really believe that what we're dealing with here is smoke and mirrors. I think
this is legislation that now they want to rush through the House, but I think it
was probably rushed in its creation as well. I think it's legislation for the
sake of fulfilling an election promise. It doesn't do anything to alter who
makes appointments at the end of the day. It doesn't do anything to alter who
makes the ultimate decisions. It doesn't do anything to alter the level of
transparency around those decisions as well.
This is another example of government saying they're
going to do something, promising action and then doing something different.
That's disappointing. This legislation doesn't have any teeth, which is perhaps
our greatest concern with the legislation after having the chance to review it
this morning. It's inactive legislation, and maybe that's a reflection on the
new administration.
Let's talk for a little bit in the time I have left
about how key appointments are usually made. Cabinet has traditionally retained
the power to make appointments to key positions. That makes sense because the
First Minister, the Premier, and the other Cabinet ministers are collectively
responsible for leading the provincial government. They set the direction for
policy. They're accountable to the people in this House. They're accountable to
the people of the province during election campaigns when government is either
elected or not elected, and we know all about that.
Every Cabinet has to ensure that people in leadership
roles at agencies, commissions and Crown corporations and so on, people
throughout government are not just qualified and they're not just skilled,
experienced and proven, but they also have to be trustworthy and they have to
work collaboratively with the government. There is good logic for Cabinet
playing a role in appointments, as it traditionally has, but don't say that
you're taking politics out of appointments and creating an independent process
when you have no intention whatsoever of doing so. It's just not true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
There are roles, though, where you do want antagonists, people who will be truly
independent and hold the government up for scrutiny and for criticism. Think
about the appointments we make in this House. Again, they're driven by
government, but they're formally approved and debated in this House and there's
an opportunity for Members of this House to challenge that. While we can't stop
government from passing whatever motion it wants, we can certainly challenge and
raise questions.
The Auditor General, the Child and Youth Advocate, the
Citizens' Representative, soon the seniors' advocate and we would argue there
should be a veterans' advocate as well having people that are truly, truly
independent and who shouldn't be looking over their shoulder to see if they're
pleasing their political masters in government, that's why those roles exist and
are appointed by this House. They do need to be critical of government, as they
often are. That's part of their job.
Let's keep in mind, as we get into this debate, that
the Crown corporations and the boards, agencies and commissions we're talking
about are entities that do the work of government. They work on behalf of
government. They're part of the team that's running the affairs of the province.
They do have to work collaboratively with whatever administration is in power.
They have to implement the administration's policies and achieve the goals of
the administration with good governance and sound management.
So along those lines, Madam Speaker, I'd suggest that
obviously it's not in any Cabinet's interest to appoint political friends who
aren't qualified to do the job. Cabinet does have a responsibility, as the
Minister of Finance eloquently stated in the news conference today. They have to
get the work done, they have to do it effectively and they have to shoulder that
responsibility. Why would people in Cabinet make decisions and appoint friends
who aren't qualified to do the job.
We live in a small place. Sometimes we have friends
that may very well be qualified. They may go through a process, win the process
and be the best person for the job. But this, Madam Speaker, is not about the
best person for the job. This is about a list that will be provided and Cabinet
will at the end of the day appoint who it wants.
Again, we shouldn't disqualify people because of some
affiliation with a certain administration. I don't think that's what's intended
here. That would defy logic. Those people that have been appointed by our
government, by previous Liberal governments, recent appointments by the current
government just because they've been what's considered a political appointment
doesn't mean they're not capable. It doesn't mean that they're not qualified to
do the job. Why would any government appoint people that aren't going to get the
work done that needs to be done on behalf of the government. It wouldn't make
sense.
We've seen lots of people who have been appointed by
our government, and Liberal governments before our time, that did a good job.
Their work benefited the people of the province immensely. I think we should
show them respect and gratitude for the work they've done serving the people of
the province, often in positions of heavy responsibility and often without
compensation.
Many of those boards, agencies and commissions that are
referenced in this legislation, either on the exclusive tier-one list or the big
tier-two list of 130 organizations, many of those people have done that work for
free. They've given their time and they've contributed their energy and their
talent to do good work on behalf of the province. So whether they're Tory or
Liberal or even New Democrats, I would suggest that people are
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
I
would suggest that those people are doing that work on behalf of whatever
government happens to be in office because they want to do good and they want to
contribute. It's not about political stripe.
In fact, when I think about some of the appointments
that were made by the former administration, there are some really stark
reminders, Madam Speaker. All I have to do is look at the front bench of the
House of Assembly on the government side to see some of our PC political
appointments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
I
believe the Minister of Finance did a good job working on the board of Nalcor,
appointed by the previous Tory administration.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Are
you saying she was a political appointment?
MR.
KENT:
I
think so.
You have the former Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor who is
now the Minister of Transportation and Works who was, I believe, what would be
defined as a political appointment. That doesn't mean, Madam Speaker, that
either hon. minister didn't do a good job. They have lots of skills. They have
lots of experience. They wouldn't be sitting on the front bench of the House of
Assembly on the government side if they weren't qualified and if they didn't
have skills, experience and talents that were worth sharing.
It's not about whether they were Tory or whether
they're now Liberal and we have some recovering New Democrats on the front
bench as well. It's not about political stripe. Just because a government made
the decision to make an appointment, it is not because the Minister of Finance
was a loyal Tory or the Minister of Transportation and Works was a loyal Tory.
They clearly were not.
We kind of missed that, but I digress, Madam Speaker. I
won't force you to rise and call me out of order. I will get back to the matter
at hand.
MR.
CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
We'll talk about that later, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.
We shouldn't disqualify people just because they were
closely tied to an administration. Lots of people have done good work regardless
of their political stripe. I appreciate the opportunity to have a little bit of
fun during what is a rather serious debate this afternoon.
We weren't afraid to reach across the aisle and find
people to serve. In some cases, we thought those people were maybe on our side
of the aisle, but, you know, that's politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. There
are so many instances of people changing political stripes. It's not always
about ideology. We sometimes are very quick to give people a partisan label and
it may not even be fair or just.
Maybe people who serve, who are appointed by
government, shouldn't be labeled by their stripe at all but by their
performance. We shouldn't look down on anybody who steps forward to serve their
province within a particular administration. It doesn't matter what political
party you belonged to or belong to.
There is nothing shameful about public service, Madam
Speaker. We ought to be encouraging it and not finding ways to smear people
unfairly, which I have no doubt, based on the heckling I've seen so far this
afternoon, that kind of smearing will undoubtedly happen during the debate on
Bill 1. We're hearing the catcalls already this afternoon.
Let's keep in mind that it's the new Liberal government
that has raised expectations, Madam Speaker. This debate is not about who we
appointed in the past or even who previous Liberal administrations appointed in
the past. It's not about what we did or what any other administration did; this
is the flagship piece of legislation for a new government with a strong mandate.
This debate has to be about what the Liberals have said
they would do differently in the platform that they were elected on that was
released in the final days of the election campaign. It's the Liberals who have
said they'll change the way things are done, and Bill 1, Madam Speaker, does not
reflect any kind of real change whatsoever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
In
fact, it justifies political appointments and actually enshrines it in
legislation, which is rather bizarre. They did attempt to raise the bar. The
onus is therefore on the new government to rise to that challenge. If they fail
to do so, then it is just smoke and mirrors and there is no real change.
Their commitment, which was outlined in the election
campaign and rehashed in the Throne Speech earlier this week, really wouldn't be
worth the paper it's written on if they're not going to do what they said they
were going to do. That's not something I would think they'd want to be the case
with their very first piece of legislation in this House.
Let's keep in mind, if you refer back to the Liberal
platform or to even the Throne Speech this week, this was not a minor
commitment. It was about as major a commitment as a commitment could be. It was
the very first plank of the platform in the 2015 red book, the very first item
in the very first section of the red book. Yes, I did read some of the red book.
Do you know what? There are some reasonable ideas in
there, too. It's not all bad. I think you'll sense from our Opposition caucus
that we won't be afraid to stand and say when something is good. In fact, it's
probably already occurred at least in the media, if not in this House, in recent
days.
This is a high priority, the very first piece of
legislation, the first bill of the mandate. Traditionally, Bill 1 is the
flagship bill that would define them. It's something they should expect their
administration to be judged by. So having set the expectations exceptionally
high, they can't fault us or fault the media, which we saw yesterday and also
today. They can't fault the public for demanding that the bill live up to the
expectations they have raised.
I was reading the paper this morning. The headline was:
Ball ducks questions. Despite promises of transparency, Cabinet can ignore
'independent' appointment recommendations.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
just want to point out the Standing Orders say that you must refer to Members by
their position, even when quoting, I'm sure.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I apologize, and I thank the Government House Leader
for reminding me, even when quoting, that the Member's name should not be
referenced.
The Premier ducks questions. Despite promises of
transparency, Cabinet can ignore 'independent' appointment recommendations.
So Members opposite will rise during second reading
debate well, probably not many of them because they want to rush this through,
as the Premier has stated and say that all these things I'm saying aren't true
and our concerns are unfounded. But already, before second reading debate even
started in the House of Assembly, the headline in today's daily paper is that
the Premier won't answer questions and the big concern with this piece of
legislation is despite the promises in the red book, despite the promises in the
Throne Speech, Cabinet can ignore 'independent' appointment recommendations.
I encourage you to read the article. I'm not
encouraging you to buy Telegram James's book, but I am encouraging you to it
is an interesting read. I'm not suggesting you don't either, but I am suggesting
that you read his article on page 1 of The
Telegram today.
This bill, Madam Speaker, is one that the
administration should be judged by. They have set expectations very high, and
the media, the Opposition and the public should hold them accountable. Let's see
if their legislation does indeed rise to the standard that they've set.
So we have the keystone piece of legislation, first
session in office. It's a big election promise. Let's look at that in more
detail, and without mentioning any premiers' or ministers' names. The 2015 red
book commitment reads as follows: Restoring Openness, Transparency and
Accountability. Liberals strongly believe that government must be open,
transparent, and accountable. The people of the province deserve to know how and
why government decisions are made, which is really ironic considering the
process that is proposed here in Bill 1.
They will restore openness, transparency and
accountability through the following actions: 1.1 Take Politics Out Of
Government Appointments. Government is responsible for appointing senior
positions at Crown corporations, public commissions, and other public agencies.
Liberals believe that these positions should be filled based on merit, not
politics. Here's the real kicker: It's simply a matter of making sure the most
qualified person gets the job.
Why would you have a process that doesn't ensure that?
Why would you have a process that doesn't even recommend the most qualified
person for the job?
I'll just go on a little further. A New Liberal
Government will establish an Independent Appointments Commission to take
politics out of government appointments. Bill 1 comes nowhere close to
achieving that. In fact, it ensures political appointments. It justifies
political appointments. It justifies a process that's not independent and it
justifies patronage appointments so very, very concerning.
The implication is clear. The appointments process will
be the idea of suggesting politics be taken out of the process would be that
it would be completely oblivious to political associations, blindfolded to
political links. Just like the blindfolded statutes in front of some of the top
courts around the world. Even the red book commitment, Madam Speaker, ends a
little weakly.
If you really want to make sure the most qualified
person gets the job, then wouldn't you expect the independence commission to do
a lot more than provide a list of people without even suggesting who the most
qualified person is? Wouldn't you expect that an Independent Appointments
Commission could actually appoint, would actually have the power to appoint
somebody to something?
What we're talking about is an Independent Appointments
Commission that has no power to appoint anybody to anything. In fact, for 130
boards and agencies and committees and councils they will have no involvement
whatsoever. This is about making recommendations. It does nothing to take
politics out of appointments.
So wouldn't you expect the commission and the
commissioners to have the power to weed out unqualified applicants? Yes, and
they probably will do so and then rank remaining applicants. Maybe even actually
make the appointment of the most qualified person, but they're not even allowed
to identify the most qualified person, Madam Speaker.
The new government, despite making some pretty bold
commitments, is not prepared to give up that power. They're not prepared to
change how they do business but they are going to put forward this bill for the
sake of meeting an election promise that certainly falls short.
They want to have the final say. I respect that, but be
honest about it. They want to make sure they have somebody who's qualified but
can also work well with them. So I understand why there may be appointments they
do not want to give up control over. I think there's actually some merit to
that, but don't say you're going to do it if you have no intention of doing it.
Again, as the Minister of Finance touched on in the
news conference this morning, Cabinet can't relinquish its responsibilities or
abdicate its obligations. Because the commission is not elected, the commission
does not have a mandate from the people of the province; the government does,
and I respect that.
We didn't relinquish our obligations and our
responsibilities, and I wouldn't expect any government to do that. We made
appointments and we were prepared to defend them. We defended them in this
House. We defended them in the media. We defended them on doorsteps. I would
like to think we could go back in time through various administrations and
identify good people that were appointed for whatever reason, who were qualified
and capable and did good service.
It's the Liberals who said that the old process was
wrong and who set new expectations. It's the Liberals who said that there must
be an independent, merit-based, politically neutral appointments process. So now
they have to deliver on that, Madam Speaker, and they can't have it both ways.
Just like you can't be Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker when you are right there,
and you are clearly Madam Speaker, either it is independent or it's not. It's
either meaningful or it's not. And if it's not, then what is it but a sham,
Madam Speaker.
So there are two separate issues that I want to
highlight and I only have a few minutes left, unfortunately, but as the House
Leader acknowledged we'll have lots of time in Committee to further discuss this
bill. If we want truly independent appointments, then there are two separate
issues that I would encourage Members of this House and members of the public to
consider. As this debate unfolds, think about how independent the commission
gatekeepers will actually be, and think about how much power those commission
appointees, those gatekeepers, will actually have. Will they be truly
independent and non-partisan? That first issue is critical.
How will we ensure that the gatekeepers are indeed
truly independent, neutral and qualified to make good decisions about the
qualifications of candidates for leadership posts in the province? That depends
on who will be on the commission. Hopefully, government will choose to recommend
some good people to serve in that capacity. But how will they be appointed
beyond the rubber-stamping that inevitably occurs here, and how will their
independence be assured? I think it's a question that warrants some
consideration.
Section 6 in this legislation and in the couple of
minutes I have left, I am not going to delve too deeply into the clauses. We
will have lots of opportunity for that, but I do want to point out that section
6 is the authority under which the commission will be established. It outlines
how the commission will be established. It says, The commission shall consist
of 5 members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of
the House of Assembly.
So Cabinet will choose five people. Caucus will be, I
would suggest, strongly encouraged to support that motion when it comes forward.
There will be a resolution in this House and government, obviously, holds a
clear majority. Then government passes the resolution, and the point I am trying
to make, Madam Speaker, is that ultimately it is Cabinet that will make those
appointments. It may get ratified in this House, but it is Cabinet who will
select the five people and bring those names forward to the House. So that is
interesting.
How can they say that the commission itself will be
non-partisan if Cabinet selects them and uses its majority to hire them but,
like parliamentary secretaries, not pay them? If the gatekeepers themselves are
political appointees, then how is that process non-partisan? If we are going to
move ahead with that and clearly it's the will and intent of government, and I
respect that why not involve both sides of the House of Assembly in selecting
those five people?
Why couldn't we all have a say in who those people are
and put forward names? I'm sure the Third Party can identify good, capable,
qualified, reputable people to serve. I'm sure we can as well, and I have no
doubt that Members opposite will do the same no doubt at all. Why not look at
some kind of process like that, and maybe even refer this bill to a committee of
the Legislature to explore that further?
I will run out of time, but another point I want to
make today in second reading is that Cabinet can fill vacancies without really
consulting with anybody. If a commission vacancy occurs while the House is not
in session and the House is not always in session there's a clause in this
bill that says, Where the House of Assembly is not sitting and a commissioner
cannot act due to accident, illness, incapacity or death, the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint a person to act in his or her place,
and that will be confirmed by a resolution of the House of Assembly once the
House next sits.
The House can go for several months without sitting, of
course, so Cabinet can appoint somebody as long as when we get back together in
the Legislature a motion is then passed. It's worth highlighting that even the
five-member commission is not, in any stretch, non-political or free from
political involvement given it is Cabinet making the appointments.
For those appointments, though, let's assume we get the
right people, they're appointed for the right reasons and they do a good job. If
we don't like a Cabinet appointment we can question Cabinet ministers anybody
can. From now on, Cabinet will simply say, well, the commission recommended the
person. Do you know what the Premier said repeatedly today? If they don't like
it, if they don't like exceptions we make or decisions we make as a Cabinet,
those five members can resign. If a member has a concern, they can resign.
Madam Speaker, there's lots of concerns to consider.
I'm down to my final few seconds. Does this bill meet the test of the promise in
the 2015 red book? Does it take the politics out of appointments? Of course it
doesn't. Does it make sure that the most qualified person gets the job?
Absolutely not. It makes sure of nothing. It doesn't take the politics out of
anything. It changes nothing. That's where this bill fails.
It's not good enough for this administration to simply
be no different from any other government in our history, regardless of
political stripe. They raised expectations in the red book. They said that they
would do things differently and they brought in this legislation. This
initiative falls short
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
and won't result in any meaningful change, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the Member his time has expired.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in second reading debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I'm delighted to have the opportunity today to speak to
Bill 1, a bill that we've heard the Premier speak to and the Member for Mount
Pearl North from the Official Opposition. It's a very interesting bill that we
have here in front of us.
The Liberal government has been promising this for a
long time. It was part of their platform in the general election where they said
that they were going to create a commission to take politics out of government
appointments. I hope the government side is not going to get sick and tired of
hearing it, but we have to talk about this promise that they made, this bull
this bill this bull, that is a good one that they put on the table for us to
look at. They're probably going to get sick and tired of hearing is the politics
really being taken out of government appointments.
They're the ones who started that. They're the ones who
started with their commitment in their platform. And they repeated it again in
the Speech from the Throne which said that this commission will be the first of
its kind in Newfoundland and Labrador note, at least the Speech from the
Throne had it correct. It might be the first of its kind in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but dealing with taking politics out of appointments is not new in the
country. I have to point that out.
The Speech from the Throne said: This commission will
be the first of its kind in Newfoundland and Labrador, taking the politics out
of government appointments. We believe that appointments to our agencies, boards
and commissions should be merit based, not politically motivated, as in the
past.
We firmly stand behind being merit based. One would
want to think that the people who are being appointed to our boards and to our
agencies and to our public bodies are people who have the experience and skills
that are needed. Now, do we need a whole commission put in place to make that
happen? I find it very interesting that when we look around the country we see
some very good examples of governments, of provinces not governments in the
terms of a particular colour government, but provinces also wanting to have a
process that takes the politics out, a process that appoints on merit.
Ontario has what they call their Public Appointments
Secretariat. It's not a separate body; it's within the government structure, but
recognizing that they wanted a merit-based appointment system with nominations
made to the government. British Columbia has what they call the Board Resourcing
and Development Office and they have the same concern. They, too, are a body
that establishes guidelines for all provincial appointments to agencies. They
ensure all provincial appointments are made on the basis of merit following an
open, transparent and consistent appointment process. That's what they've done
in Ontario and BC. They've set up bodies within government that makes sure
appointments are merit based and makes sure that it's an open, transparent
process.
I think this government has put itself into a real
conundrum. They're not going to say that, Mr. Speaker. They're not going to
admit that. One of the realities is that, ultimately, it is government's
responsibility to do the final appointing ultimately, it is. Ultimately, the
Lieutenant Governor in Council and the ministers have to make final
appointments. That's part of their responsibility. That's what they're elected
for.
What the people of the province want, and certainly
what we want as a party is an open and transparent process that also recognizes
government's responsibility. How do we do that? That is what's been lacking in
the past in this province, is an open and transparent process.
I'm going to start where my colleague for Mount Pearl
North left off. He and I don't agree often on a lot of stuff, but we agree on
this one, and that is the starting point for the whole process is the actual
commission itself. That's the starting point. What is this government doing?
What does the bill say? The bill says a motion will be brought into the House
and we will get to approve the five people who are on the IAC.
The Premier stood today and said the same thing. He
pointed that out as that was going to be the process of consultation. We would
have the opportunity to speak to the five people who were going to be appointed
by government, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council here in this House.
Well, where we agree, not with the government but with
what the Member for Mount Pearl North said and I totally agree, it was in my
notes and I'm bringing it forward is that you, the government, should be
asking all of us in this House to name people as the possible people to be on
that commission.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
We
are.
MS.
MICHAEL:
No,
you're not doing that I point out, Mr. Speaker. They are not doing that.
What they're doing is they're going to be bringing five
names in here and saying, okay, approve them. They're the majority. No matter
what we say or do they're the majority.
The Premier said that he would not for example, when
it comes to nominees who are brought forward to the Cabinet want to make those
names public because he wouldn't want to embarrass people if they didn't get
chosen. However, what they are going to do is decide on five people who are
going to be on that IAC, bring those names in here and then say to us, okay, if
you want to tear them apart, tear them apart.
They're going to ask us here publicly in this House to
have an open discussion about the five names that are brought forward. That's a
discussion that should happen prior. That's the discussion that should happen
where we can really sit down together, as people with responsibility, and put
the IAC together, the appointments commission together.
What happens here in the House and we all know that
and the public knows it as well. When names like that get brought to the House
we are rubber stamping at that point. We're not going to be saying, why did Ms.
J. B. of those five why do you have her? Why are you bringing her into the
House? Why do you think she is a good person? We're not going to do that here in
this House. That's not the kind of thing you do.
So the actual appointment of the IAC is in their hands.
It will come in here and we'll rubber stamp it. That's what is going to happen.
The public knows that's what is going to happen and they know that's what is
going to happen. There is the first flaw. The first flaw is they ultimately name
the IAC.
If they really wanted an open process, tell us. Tell us
during this debate that they are going to ask the two Opposition Parties to
nominate people, along with people they nominate, and we'll look at all of them
together. Then, we will get a variety of people, maybe, of political stripes. I
think the big important thing will be a variety of people with their experience.
One of the things, for example, that is noted in the
Ontario secretariat in their guidelines it is one of the principles governing
the Ontario Public Appointments Secretariat: Persons selected to serve must
reflect the true face of Ontario in terms of diversity and regional
representation. When I asked this morning in our technical briefing what was
going to happen inside the PSC with regard to gender diversity I took one
piece of diversity, gender diversity, in putting the list together for
government the answer was it's merit based. That was the only thing. We will
be giving names forward
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer during the technical briefing was it will be
merit based. That's the only thing that the PSC will be using is merit based.
There is nothing in here that talks about the people who get appointed
reflecting, in terms of diversity on regional representation, the true face of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So we are dealing with something very complicated
because government has a responsibility, with regard to diversity, in the
appointments that it does. It's not nice and clean in saying PSC passes us a
list of names. What if the Public Service Commission passes the government a
list of names that is just five of one gender, five men, no Aboriginal people,
all from the Burin Peninsula? What if that happens? Government has a
responsibility.
What they've put in place is not going to help the
process at all of what we need here in this province. Yes, government has to do
appointments and we need an open and transparent process. I don't think that a
government-appointed five-person commission is going to give us an open and
transparent process. That's the basic flaw. The very first thing is the basic
flaw with this bill.
I put that out to government. I have to ask, how much
real thinking through did this government do when they came up with this idea of
the commission? What real thinking did they put into that? Right now, they
started saying they want something that was not politically motivated, that
politics are being taken out. They put in place something that ultimately has to
say it has to have the notwithstanding clause because ultimately it is
government's responsibility to appoint. Then they have the five- person
commission that they will appoint and bring to us for rubber stamping. So they
haven't taken the politics out. They have not done that.
This seems to be a habit of theirs right now, the
flip-flopping that they've been doing and continue to do. For example, we had
heard all during the general election that there were going to be no job cuts.
They had not only their leader saying it, not only was it being said by him,
they had key people who were running for them out saying it as well. It was one
of the things they got elected on, I am positive. Yet what's the first thing
they're flip-flopping on once we're here and we're finally all three elected and
we're back working again? It's on the table. Everything is on the table. Job
cuts are on the table.
Why? Because they knew, I think what they were thinking
and if they didn't know what they were thinking, that's even worse. So it
flip-flopped, the same way with the HST. No, the HST is not going up. Now that's
on the table, too. Why is that on the table, too? Because they didn't think; all
they were doing was making political promises and not thinking the political
promises through.
Now here they are with a bill that everybody is going
to recognize. I, too, invite the general public to go into the government
website and into the House of Assembly inside of that website and find the bill
and read it. They, too, will see that they aren't keeping the promise they
talked about, the promise of taking politics out of appointments. If they really
meant it, if they want this process, the process of having the commission and
I don't think they need that process. I think it's an extra level of work.
All of this goes on anyway. The Public Service
Commission does the job of keeping the lists of people and people who are
qualified, and people with merit, et cetera. It could be broadened. What they do
could be broadened.
Already, government takes nominations and government
appoints. What happens right now, especially with the things where government
does not relate to the Public Service Commission is all private, we have no
idea. Nobody knows what openings there are. Nobody knows how they can apply for
openings. Nobody knows how they can nominate people.
An open and transparent process, as they have in
Ontario and BC, could be put in place without having this commission. This
commission really is smoke and mirrors, I agree. That's the only thing I can use
for it as well is smoke and mirrors, trying to make people think that something
different is happening. Nothing different is happening, Mr. Speaker.
If they really meant it and I'm going to repeat it
they would have all three parties together. I'm trying to remember which place
in particular where they say that. They talk about it. It might be in the Speech
from the Throne; I don't want to say exactly where. This government has talked
about the all-party committee structure. It has said that they would use the
all-party committee structure to talk about legislation.
If there's a piece of legislation where an all-party
committee should be talking about the legislation, it's this piece of
legislation. An all-party committee is not happening here on the floor of the
House. An all-party committee meets outside of the legislative structure. It
sits down and works through the legislation.
That is where we should be doing the work. It's in an
all-party committee structure that names should be coming forward, that ideas
should be being put out on the table. Then we might see the politics being taken
out of the structure. Because if the names were coming and there was mutual
agreement happening on a committee level with regard to the people who were
going to be on the commission, then I'd say the politics were being taken out of
it. It's not being taken out of it now.
It's still ultimately we have the open process with
the Public Service Commission. They will make sure the availability of positions
is put out publicly. They will make people know in an open way they can make an
application and they can put their names in. From then on, there really is
nothing open about it. From then on there isn't, and it's all in government's
hands.
We have to recognize that this government needs to call
this what it is. It is another new structure which is outside of the government
system. But being outside of the government system, the commission itself,
doesn't mean it's non-political, because it is still political.
Government being responsible for making appointments
does not have to be partisan. You see, that's the word that's not being used.
We're saying taking politics out. It's taking partisanship out. It's taking out
making decisions and finding people based on what is the political colour of
that person. Is that somebody who we need to pay back for the work they did for
us in the campaign? That's the kind of thing that has happened here in this
province, and that's what we want to end. We all know that; that's been part of
our history, way too much. We don't need to name examples, and I won't, but we
all know them. And that's what we want to get away from. We want to get away
from the partisanship.
Can you get away from government maintaining its
responsibility? No, you can't. Government has to maintain its responsibility.
You will always find a notwithstanding clause in legislation. You will always
find a notwithstanding clause even in the contract, because ultimately there are
things that have to happen and ultimately it is government's responsibility.
That's why we are elected; that's why we have a party that forms the governance
of the Assembly. It's the responsibility to make good decisions, but the good
decisions need to be made, all the parties together and when those five names
come in here, that's not the point at which we can really discuss who should be
on that commission. That's the point at which you say: Okay, well, that's who it
is.
We're not going to sit here, when those five names come
in, and drag those names through the mud. If I know somebody of those five names
my gosh, I can't believe that person is being appointed. I'm not going to say
that here publicly here in the House. Of course I'm not. My colleagues across
the way are looking at me and some of them are almost nodding because they know
we can't do that. All we can do when those names come in here to the House is
approve them.
We have to learn what consultation means. We have in a
number of appointments right now that have been made by government it says
government is supposed to consult. Well, I remember one time quarter to 11 on a
Sunday evening, getting a call from an executive assistant saying the premier
wants me to call you to tell you that tomorrow we're naming so and so for this
position. That was the consultation quarter to 11 on a Sunday evening.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Who
did that?
MS.
MICHAEL:
Well, I don't think the Liberals were in government since I came in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MS.
MICHAEL:
However, I do not put it past them. You're doing the same thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
MICHAEL:
In
this bill there is no word even about consulting with regard to those five
people. That's the point I wanted to get to. It doesn't even say that the
government will consult with the rest of the MHAs in the House. It will not
consult with the Opposition with regard to naming the five people. So that's why
I know it's even worse. I won't even get a phone call quarter to 12 or quarter
to 11 on a Sunday evening, because you're not even saying that you have to
consult.
Mr. Speaker, it isn't taking the politics out. It isn't
doing what they've promised. I really think this bill is a sham.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's certainly an honour to be able to stand in my
place in this House of Assembly to speak to issues that are important to the
people of this province. Whether it's legislation, whether it's pressing issues,
these are the things that we're put here to do. So it's certainly an honour to
stand here in this House and speak to this.
It's an even bigger honour to be able to stand here and
speak to Bill 1 for this new government. Bill 1, an Independent Appointments
Commission, something that we talked about when we were in Opposition, we put it
in our election platform, and right now we have it here on the floor of the
House of Assembly being debated by all parties. That shows you that again it was
a promise that was made and right now it's a promise that's being kept. Bill 1,
the flagship piece of legislation, is being put forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
appreciate the commentary from the Members opposite. Again, I know quite well
what it's like to stand up on the other side and speak to legislation and to
hold government accountable for legislation. I appreciate and respect the
comments that they make to this. That is their job.
Do you know what? I can remember Members in government
saying, oh, you're in Opposition and you have to disagree just for the sake of
disagreeing, and Opposition is an easy job. I will say to you, you'll never hear
that from me, because I worked extremely hard in Opposition. I worked extremely
hard.
I'm sure that Members opposite who were on this side
and are on this side will learn that it is an extremely hard job if you want to
do a very good job of ensuring that government is accountable to the people of
this province, which is the job of the Opposition. Whether you're a Member of
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition or you're a Member of the NDP, it doesn't matter,
your job is to hold government accountable, and we welcome that.
Now, I'm going to speak to Bill 1, the Independent
Appointments Commission. Tuesday was our first day in the House, with a Throne
Speech for a new government. We announced it that day that this was Bill 1.
Yesterday the bill was put out there for people to see, to debate, to discuss.
Today there was a briefing on it, there was a press conference on it, and we're
here debating it.
The good news is this is just the first day of it, the
first day of this debate. I'm sure there will be plenty more, as there should be
on any piece of important legislation. There should be as much debate as people
need to ensure that they get their points across, and I welcome that.
Contrary to what the Member for Mount Pearl North said
he said government is trying to rush this through I can say, Mr. Speaker,
with all certainty, we're not going to be trying to rush this through like some
of the pieces of legislation that that government rushed through right here in
this House.
I remember one that they invoked closure on, but again
I'm going to follow the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to be
relevant. I'm going to speak to this bill which is here. We have all the time in
the world.
I think the Member opposite misconstrued what our
Premier said when he said we want to get this done. We want to get it done
quickly. The reason is, as the Premier stated, there are hundreds of positions
on these various boards, tier one, tier two, you name it, they're open. They
have not been filled. Many of these groups are calling and writing and saying
please fill this position, which has been vacant for months and years, so we can
do our job.
That's what they're doing. They're calling us. I've had
those letters myself in my department for the various boards that fall under the
mandate of the Department of Justice. They're saying this has been vacant, I
wrote the minister before you, and the minister before that, and the minister
before that and they're not filled. Please fill it so we can do our job. That's
what we want to do.
We realize that you can't rush it; you have to debate
it. This is just the first part. We're debating the legislation. For the benefit
of those that may not have sat through this, second reading is where you get to
talk about the bill, maybe, more generally. We'll go into Committee and that's
when we'll get into, hopefully, the questions, suggestions and the points.
I can tell you, I'm certainly open to listening to what
Members opposite have to suggest. Obviously we're going to listen to hear what
they have to say if it has some merit, which again is the whole point of this
commission: to have merit. If there's merit to the suggestions, then we will
listen.
That being said, just because they say something
doesn't mean that we are going to listen if it has no merit. The other thing is
that our mandate is to govern. That's going to be brought up again now shortly
when I go back to some of the points that have been made by Members on the other
side.
An Independent Appointments Commission one would say,
what does it do? What we're trying to do is we're trying to put a process in
place where there has never been one before. I guess you could say it has
different tiers depending on it.
There is a Public Service Commission. It exists right
now; it is there. What is going to happen is that people that want actually
I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm going to go back to the IAC. It's going to be a
five-member Independent Appointments Commission. Those names will be brought
forward by us as a government. Do you know what? If there were names to be
suggested, I'd say suggest them. Put them out there. What harm is there in
suggesting it?
At the end of the day you have to start somewhere and
this government will select those names. I'm pretty sure, I'm willing to bet
that the people that come forward to do this extremely important task are going
to be qualified, they're going to be experienced, and they're going to be
leaders. Their job is to ensure that the right people are getting in the right
positions because at the end of the day, the jobs that we're filling handle
taxpayer money and responsibility. That is what we're trying to protect, to make
sure we have the right people in the right jobs.
It's a case of having the right people not knowing the
right people. We've had some of that in the past. Do you know what? I'm just
going to say in the past we've seen that. I don't need to get into the places
where that's happened right yet.
We have this IAC. That resolution when these names come
forward, this is not just names that are forced on this; that is going to be in
a resolution that is brought here to the House and debated. If Members on the
other side have an issue with those individuals, they'll have a chance to put
that out there and debate it. Tell us why these individuals are or are not
qualified to hold this. Tell us why they should not be there.
Again, we will have the full debate. That is what we
have to have, but we want to get that done. Don't get me wrong; we want to get
that done to get this moving because the taxpayers' money is at risk here and
some of these positions need governance. Some of these boards need governance
and they need people there now.
I am going to say there are some that obviously have
more at stake than others. There are some that are very high in terms of
expense, in terms of responsibility and the mandate that they handle, and there
are some on the lower end. Again, it is interesting to note the people who come
forward to do this will be volunteers; they are just going to be remunerated for
the expenses they incur in doing the job. This is not even a paid position.
These people will do this out of a sense of duty to this province. The same
reason I would note that everybody here the reason we are here is because we
all feel that sense to serve.
Again, going forward, it is a three-year term and any
further members of the IAC will go through this same independent process. They
are going to go through that, but you have to start somewhere. Once the IAC is
in place what is going to happen is that individuals who are interested in one
of the various positions, which are going to be posted they are going to be
put out there so that the public can express interest in this. It is going to go
through the Public Service Commission, a non-partisan organization.
Again, I'm not going to say anything bad about it. I
know there are some comments on the other side that indicated I am not going
to say on the other side because that implies both sides; I am going to say from
the previous Member of the Official Opposition who spoke, he seemed to indicate
he wasn't sure if he could trust them. Now, he will get an opportunity to say
whether that is true or not, but I have trust in the Public Service Commission
to ensure that the right people are getting in the right spot. I have that
faith.
They are going to suggest names to the IAC. So that is
one independent process there that never existed before, and now it is going to
go to this five-person, non-partisan commission that never existed, for
consideration. I can't tell you what their process will entail. I am sure
they'll put it through any similar process that one goes through to get a job.
There could be an interview, there are resumes, there are probably references
and there is a whole number of things, probably, depending on the position. They
are going to suggest three individuals. Three individuals will be suggested.
Here lies one of the points, I guess, that the other
side is having some issue with: Well, why is that going to Cabinet? Some Members
on the other side have said and the Premier spoke about this. At the beginning
it was, you're there to govern, so govern. Now when we're going to govern
they're saying, hang on a second, don't do that. You can't have it both ways. At
the end of the day, the law states that it's Cabinet's duty. We cannot abrogate
our duty to make decisions for the best interests of this province. I'm not
prepared to do that.
It's going to come to Cabinet and Cabinet will make a
decision of the three people that went through a two-tier process of independent
people. I would point out for the record it's never existed before in this
province ever ever. Anybody before that went in certain positions here; I
don't know how they were appointed. I never saw any process that they went
through. Usually, they just showed up. Certain positions, the way that they got
in you might be able to question them.
There are lots of names that have been suggested and
we'll bring those up at some point. I want to talk about what we're trying to
get done here. It comes to Cabinet and Cabinet is going to make that decision
because it's Cabinet prerogative, it's Cabinet's job and it's Cabinet's duty to
pick the individual. All of this is going to be posted online. This individual
will be posted online as well.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know, I'm not quite sure I know
that, especially the Member for Mount Pearl North, he used words
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know Members opposite, especially the Member for
Mount Pearl North he said he has a lot of concerns about this. I'm willing to
bet
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to see the other side is interested in what I
have to say here.
They're expressing their concern. That's their job, is
to question legislation. Do you know what? At the end of the day I think they're
going to support this because it's drastically improved over the process you
had, which was nothing. You had nothing.
That being said, the Member opposite is going to get
plenty of opportunity and I will certainly listen. He's going to get
opportunity to make suggestions on how to improve the process. By all means, I
suggest you do it. That being said, the question will be asked back, why didn't
you do that when you were there? Why didn't you do it?
I ask the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune: What
did you do? If you have suggestions you'll get plenty of opportunity to make
them. You've got plenty of opportunity, and I promise I won't interrupt you
while you speak. I promise I won't interrupt the Member for Fortune Bay Cape
La Hune when she has a turn to speak to this and offer her constructive
suggestions as to how to improve this groundbreaking legislation this government
promised and is now delivering.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
She's going to have her say on this at some point.
The other thing I would like to know and I think this
is important, and it's something that's been discussed in this House of
Assembly. One thing that's going to be applied during this entire independent
process, and I think it's necessary, is a gender lens to ensure we're getting
both women and men, capable women and men qualified to be examined for these
positions. That's what we need. I don't think anybody is going to disagree with
having that sort of lens apply here.
We've talked about it here in the House of Assembly,
how we need more females in this House of Assembly, and I think everybody
agrees. Well, I think we also need more women to be going through this process,
and they are going to be given every opportunity. That's part of this two-tier
process of Independent Appointments Commission. That's there, and I don't think
I'll get any disagreement from the other side on that.
My time
is starting to run out here. I have to suggest that and I have to commend our
Premier. Our Premier, back when he was on the other side, spoke about this. He
questioned this when he was in Opposition and said, look and again, do you
know what? We've got some people in these positions. It's not the appointment
process; it's the ability to do their job. Many of these people are good people.
They are qualified people. This is not saying they're not qualified or they
shouldn't be there. This is questioning the process.
The Premier said on
the campaign trail he heard this. I can back that up because I heard it. People
question, how do certain people get these positions? Are they qualified? I have
to tell you, we've seen it in the past with one particular organization where
their chairperson used to take vacation time to go run a political campaign, and
after the campaign he would come back to that publicly appointed position. That
didn't just happen once; that happened twice. So please explain to me how that
is an appropriate process. Please explain to me.
I would suggest,
and I invite questions as to this. That's the whole point of this. As the
minister said, this is our flagship legislation. This is our Bill 1 it is. I
will recall that the flagship legislation in the last session, Bill 1 for the
other side, died on the Order Paper.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
What was it?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Public procurement. It died on the Order Paper.
MR.
JOYCE:
The
Leader of the Opposition was the minister.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes.
This piece of legislation is important to us. We're
going to ensure that it happens because it's in the best interests of the people
of this province. Do you know what? I know people on the other side are going to
question it, as they should. There's going to be plenty of opportunity, as we go
through this legislative process, to deal with this.
I don't think there's any need to refer to prior
practice because I explained that the prior practice was just ad hoc. Who's
there? Who do we need to put in the position? That's not how it works. That's
not how it should work. I know there are people out there in these positions
now. I've talked to them and they say this is the right thing. This is the right
thing to do. They recognize that. They want this. I think this is a good thing.
I know the minister opposite or Member opposite, sorry,
was questioning former minister.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you for the painful reminder.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Not
intentional there, sorry.
The Member opposite pointed out that it's non-binding.
Well, at the end of the day Cabinet has to provide the direction to go. We
cannot abrogate our responsibility. The funny thing is if that did happen, I can
guarantee the other side would say they don't want to make decisions. I know
that would happen because they've done it already, say they don't want to make
decisions. Well, you know, we are making a decision here.
When you question the process when it's all said and
done, when we see how this transpires, when we see how it gets debated, when we
see the individuals that make up the IAC, when we see the process that leads to
qualified individuals going into this, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that at the
end of the day people are going to say it was the right thing to do. I am
confident of that, Mr. Speaker.
Given the fact that my time is running out, I think
I've made my point. I will have an opportunity during Committee stage to stand
and respond to questions during the back and forth and certainly answer
questions from Members opposite when they have them. I look forward to that as
we continue through this process.
At this time, I would move that the debate on Bill 1
now be adjourned.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that the debate be adjourned.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, debate adjourned.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that the House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on
Tuesday Monday being a holiday.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.