May 16, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 20
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Jury
Act, 1991, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 13)
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 14, An Act Respecting Children,
Youth And Families, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Children, Youth And Families. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act Respecting Children, Youth And Families,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 8.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the hon. Government House Leader that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 8 entitled An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
amendments that are needed to bring this act in – what we're doing with this act
essentially, Mr. Speaker, is changes to the search and rescue tax credit that we
announced as part of Budget 2018.
We were
honoured, myself and the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port East, I think it is
called –
MR.
FINN:
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
OSBORNE:
–
Stephenville - Port au Port, who brought the idea to me during the budget
consultations. I know that the Minister of Service NL and the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety, we did a news conference a couple of weeks ago with
the St. John's Rovers regarding this issue. There were a number of search and
rescue organizations from across the Island came into the city.
This is something that search and rescue volunteers
have been asking for, for quite some time. Volunteer firefighters currently have
the tax credit; the tax credit is a $3,000 tax credit. You need 200 hours of
volunteer time in order to apply for the tax credit on your income tax.
What we're doing in this act is bringing it in line
with the volunteer firefighters' act. We are allowing any individual who
volunteer for both search and rescue and the volunteer firefighter to combine
their hours. They can only claim either one tax credit or the other, but we're
allowing individuals to combine their hours to give them a total of 200 hours
because some individuals throughout the province volunteer for both search and
rescue as well as volunteer firefighting. We felt it was appropriate to allow
individuals to combine their hours.
Mr. Speaker, those individuals who dedicate their time
in excess of 200 hours per year, it's a very fitting reward for them for
government to recognize their time, the valuable hours that they put into search
and rescue, saving lives, the valuable hours that they put into volunteer
firefighting and give very selflessly of their time as a volunteer. This
tax credit, while it's not a huge cost to the province, is certainly a big
benefit to those individuals who volunteer their time and provide that volunteer
service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I can't
overstate how impressed I am with the commitment of volunteers who do search and
rescue or volunteer firefighters, and the level of skill they bring to search
and rescue throughout our province, but I'm also impressed with the level of
composure and focus that they bring to difficult and often traumatic situations.
Under very difficult circumstances, our province's search and rescue volunteers
face demanding situations head-on, helping others, in what is often their
darkest hours. It's for those reasons that we expanded government's support for
first responders by introducing the search and rescue tax credit.
The tax
credit, as I said, will allow a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit starting
January 1, 2019 on their provincial income tax returns. They require the 200
hours, as I said. So the provincial government along with WorkplaceNL have made
several enhancements in recent years to help volunteers, first responders and
will continue to stand behind them as they provide their services to the people
of the Newfoundland and Labrador.
Throughout the province some people might actually be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to
learn that Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association is comprised
of 27 teams and have more than 1,000 volunteers throughout the province. That's
really quite impressive for those individuals to give so selflessly of their
time to help others in, as I said, what is sometimes a very traumatic situation.
The
search and rescue volunteers work hard to bring those people home safely to
their families. Most of the time, they are able to bring the individuals home
safely. We know of just recently snowmobilers on the Northern Peninsula and I
believe in Labrador were highlighted in the news and those searches were
successful. They found the individuals and brought them home.
So
without the help of these 1,000 volunteers throughout the province, that would
not always be the case. We wouldn't always see a situation where they were able
to bring somebody home safely. So the tax credit that we're putting forward, Mr.
Speaker, is a very small cost to the provincial government, but it's a very,
very large benefit to those volunteers.
It's
important that we do whatever we can to support the volunteers who play such an
important role in search and rescue operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.
These people, the men and women who volunteer their time in search and rescue,
Mr. Speaker, are an integral part of the public safety in this province. The
work they do is extremely important. As a government we recognize that work,
which is why we're offering this tax credit in this year's budget. Our
government will always seek opportunities to support those individuals who spend
their time supporting families throughout our province.
I would
particularly like to recognize, Mr. Speaker, the head of the Rovers Search and
Rescue who put together the opportunity that we had for the news conference two
or three weeks ago where myself, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety were greeted very respectfully and
welcomed into that facility. It was an honour to be able to look at some of the
equipment they use throughout the province and the technology they use. I'm very
impressed with the command centres they use. The Rovers Search and Rescue, I
wanted to send a thank you to them as well for organizing that event and
welcoming us to their facility and showing us some of what they do, but, as
well, other operators throughout the province.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port has a great deal of respect
for first responders. As I said, it was his idea during the budget
consultations. A number of the changes we made in this year's budget were as a
result of listening not only to individuals throughout the province in the
pre-budget consultations, but Members of the House of Assembly. We put an
invitation out to all Members to come to us and provide us with ideas. Those
Members who did, where we were able to incorporate those ideas into
Budget 2018, we certainly did.
Mr.
Speaker, it is extraordinary that in our busy world there are so many people
that are so willing to give freely of their time. This new tax credit is
intended to reward those volunteers for the good work they do. The amendments
we're making today are to put this program into effect. Through these
amendments, we are making changes that will allow us to reward and recognize the
good work of the volunteers that work in search and rescue.
Mr.
Speaker, included in these amendments, we're looking at the combined total of
tax credits as $5,000, which is consistent with volunteer firefighters. We also
looked at making some small amendments to educational and training tax credits
that have to be used. If you're transferring tax credits to a spouse or a
parent, your volunteer tax credit has to be used prior to being able to transfer
your educational tax credits. So that's a part of these amendments as well. It's
generally housekeeping in order to put into effect the recognition that we want
to provide to the volunteers throughout the province.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will say that it's a pleasure to stand and recognize the
tireless work of our search and rescue volunteers throughout our province and
how this amendment will ensure that these dedicated volunteers will have
additional financial support as a reward for the good work they do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand to speak to Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, and
deal specifically with search and rescue volunteers. As the minister said,
bringing the tax credit availability to that group of volunteers who do
tremendous work in our communities and regions in times of crisis in many cases
where search and rescue skills and expertise are required and do that right
across our province. This recognizes their work on a volunteer basis and gives a
tax credit related to that activity.
This
comes in line with what was introduced in 2018, I do believe, in regard to
volunteer firefighters and being able to access the firefighters' tax credit.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, when you look at statistics in volunteerism on a per
capita basis, we have some of the highest rates of volunteerism in the country.
Based on that, it's important that we recognize the activities, certainly
volunteer firefighters, search and rescue volunteers as well and the work they
do and how critical they are in our communities, especially our smaller
communities, where they keep these fire brigades operational and as well, from
the search and rescue point of view, in times of need they're there.
They're
usually there in the regions in communities and they're accessible very quickly
in a time of need like that. So they play a critical role in our communities, in
our regions. When we talk about sustainability of areas in parts of our
province, they play a key role in having that service and people having the
comfort level of living in those communities and regions because those
volunteers exist.
This tax
credit looks at giving back to this group of people and the work they do. The
Search and Rescue Volunteer Tax Credit, as we're talking about here in this
particular bill, will be identical to the firefighters' tax credit.
The
minister has referenced the fact that 200 hours of service is required. My
understanding, based on the bill, is that's cumulative and can be used for
either activity. We do have people that are involved in many activities in their
community and in volunteerism, and could be involved in a volunteer firefighting
brigade and as well, involved in a search and rescue volunteer fire brigade.
Collectively, if they put in different hours in different activities, they can
avail up to 200 hours – use it in both of those activities, the 200 hours to
avail of the tax credit.
The
credit would be $3,000 taxed at 8.7 per cent. This tax credit was announced in
this Budget 2018 and my understanding
is it can be availed of in taxation year 2019. When individuals are doing their
personal income tax they can draw down on that tax credit at that point in time.
A
question I had reading through the bill – and probably when we get to Committee
the minister can speak to it. I said about the large number of volunteers we
have in the province and in volunteer fire brigades and the number of people
that are involved in that. I'm just wondering if the minister in Committee could
maybe get some information in regard to the number of registered volunteer
firefighters and the uptake that's been seen on the actual tax credits since
it's come in for volunteer firefighters because it's relevant here. One would
ask are people aware of it? Has it been availed of? It's important that those
volunteers would be aware of it and could avail of it.
Then,
looking forward, I think he mentioned in regard to the search and rescue and the
numbers, I think he referenced the number of maybe 1,000 in regard to those that
are involved in search and rescue. Those would be volunteers that could avail of
this actual tax credit in 2019. I guess that would be the projected of 1,000 who
could be available. It's always good to make them aware that this tax credit is
available to them and they can avail of it based on their service up to – and
requiring 200 hours of service.
I know
from the search and rescue point of view, I've seen it myself over the past
number of years in regard to the role they play. I refer to a number of years
ago we were in the Avalon wilderness, into Frank's Pond with a group of people,
there was a gentleman with a young son who went off for the day to a fishing
hole, didn't make it back to camp, darkness came and there was a call made to
the local search and rescue volunteer group.
They
arrived late at night, it was probably about 11 o'clock and it was a very
nervous time for the family indeed. Luckily enough, it all worked out well, but
it just goes to the unique situations that can occur. It's not a good place, if
anyone is familiar with the outdoors and certainly the Avalon wilderness, once
darkness comes, the temperature drops, and there could be challenges and dangers
to everybody. But these are the kinds of people that are involved in activities
that could be called upon to go out and assist, and what this bill does is
certainly recognize that activity, that commitment and what they do.
The
other thing about it is this is not an activity, for these folks, that's 9 to 5.
Most of these activities happen late at night and, oftentimes, in extreme
conditions. It's not just a 9 to 5 in the perfect conditions outdoors that they
would respond to certain activities. It is unique in what they do.
The
provisions of the bill and the various sections that have been amended – clause
1 adds the definition needed for the tax credit. From my understanding, the
definitions are in line with the federal act and tax credits, and that's in
clause 1. Clause 2, this adds 17.4 to the legislation and adds the search and
rescue tax credit to the order and to various provisions.
The
other provisions in it look at – and the minister mentioned this as well –
referencing the fact about the transfer of unused education credits and fully
utilized other tax credits before being able to avail of this actual search and
rescue tax credit first. I think the minister had mentioned that as well when he
was up.
Then it
goes on and parts of it talks about, as I said before, using jointly the two
activities of volunteerism, the firefighting component and the search and rescue
component, to get to the required 200 hours as indicated in the bill.
You
can't receive – and the minister said this as well – two of the tax credits
cumulatively one on top of the other, stack them I guess, in terms of that
regard; but cumulatively, you can receive them up to the maximum, up the cap
that exists.
From our
perspective, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this bill, I thank the minister for
bringing it forward in regard to our volunteers and all the work they do. As I
said, there are a few questions there that are brought up. Maybe in Committee we
can have a short discussion on those and some of the indicators of what's been
availed of to date in regard to the volunteer firefighters, what's the
expectation or how do we market and make those volunteers aware that this exists
so those that partake can fully utilize the tax credit to the benefit of them
and their families.
We look
forward to that and having a chat on that in Committee.
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,
am pleased this morning to rise and speak to Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Income
Tax Act. I'm particularly happy to do this because of the content of this bill
which has –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Which
both the minister and the Member for Ferryland have spoken to in terms of the
details of this bill, something I think which is long overdue. It's certainly
something which has been sought for and spoken to by people who are involved in
search and rescue in this province as volunteers and is also involved in
firefighting.
We do
know that this tax credit which we are talking about here today, a tax credit
for search and rescue volunteers, is something that does exist in the federal
tax act. Of course, our provincial act should be parallel with the federal act.
I think it's important. It was necessary that this be brought in to our
provincial tax and will be administered in a parallel way with the federal tax.
I won't
go into the details of the bill; the minister and the Member for Ferryland have
done that. It basically is technical. You do have the definition in there of
adding search and rescue volunteers to the list of people who get tax credits in
doing this kind of volunteer work. Then you have all of the technical ways in
which that gets dealt with inside of the taxation system. The important thing is
that this credit is going in place.
A lot of
people may not realize but people who voluntarily do this search and rescue work
pay for expenses out of their own pockets. The equipment that they use comes out
of their own pockets. For example, nowadays they use GPS, obviously; have always
used compasses, they're still in use; proper clothing. They use gas in driving
to and from the sites where they're involved in doing the search and rescue
work. All of these expenses – a GPS alone can cost $500.
So
giving a tax credit I think will really help to – the minister used the term
reward the volunteers, and I think it's a recognition of not just the time that
they put into this and not just the human danger in which they put themselves,
but also the money that comes out of their own pockets to pay for the equipment
that they use. So this is a recognition, I think, of all of that. There are 27
search and rescue groups in this province, and all of them, obviously, have
welcomed this tax credit.
This has
been asked for, for a long time, as the minister has pointed out. Recognition of
volunteers is extremely important, but especially these volunteers – and this
goes along with the firefighters as well, the volunteer firefighters, because
they are involved in something which has to do with life and death in our
province. It amazes me – it really does – when I hear of the situations in which
they put themselves in, in order to help the community and to help the people of
this province, and to make sure the people of this province are kept safe.
I was
delighted when the budget speech said this was going to come in, and we are
happy as the caucus here to support this bill today. The credit itself will
start on January 1 of 2019, which means in 2020 when people do their tax return
in 2020 that will be the first time that they'll claim, because they'll be able
to claim for the expenses starting with January 1.
So it's
good news and I thank the minister for bringing it in, for listening to the
voice of the many, many volunteers out there doing this work, and we'll be very
happy to support the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 8, An Act to Amend the
Income Tax Act. I certainly wish to, first and foremost, thank the Minister of
Finance for acknowledging the fact that I did bring this idea forward with
respect to providing a tax credit to our search and rescue volunteers, but I
certainly cannot take all of the credit, that's for sure.
Mr.
Speaker, as you're aware, we listen to our constituents across our districts and
we listen to citizens from all across our province, and this was something that
was brought to me. It's an idea that was brought to me by a gentleman by the
name of Mr. Gerry Clark. I'd certainly be remiss not to acknowledge Mr. Gerry
Clark.
Mr.
Clark actually happened to be my grade 10 teacher at one point, and then again
in grade 12 in my senior year of high school. He actually taught me the first
aid and safety course. It's an interesting story behind that and my work with
Mr. Clark throughout that program. I guess at that time I had taken a search and
rescue and various safety courses: backpacking, mapping, using compass, the
ability to stay in the woods overnight, a number of things, and in particular
first aid, I had taken on a number of occasions. So by the time I got to his
grade 12 class, I wasn't entirely interested in continuing with the first aid
course.
I'll
make a bit of a long story short, but it is quite comical. Mr. Gerry Clark who
is the head of the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue group, he
and I certainly chuckle over this. Entering my grade 12 year, I had already
accumulated a number of what I had thought to be extracurricular credits towards
completing my high school diploma.
In the
beginning of my senior year of high school, the principal at the time and the
vice-principal had called me down to the office. They said: John, if you do not
enrol in this first aid course with Mr. Clark, unfortunately, you will not have
enough credits to graduate high school. I said I wasn't aware that was the case.
I thought I had all of these extra credits and I did some extracurricular
activities and there was an after school band program and so on so forth. They
said: No, John, if you do not take Mr. Clark's first aid course you will not
graduate high school.
Now, in
my senior year of high school, once you had reached so many credits and all of
your course opportunities were taken, you could have what we called free periods
or free slots. There would be some days of the week, Mr. Speaker, where I would
only go to high school for an hour in the morning. I'd be off for two hours and
then I'd go back for an hour or two in the afternoon. I had the most free slots
in the school, and it was because I had taken a lot of these extra courses;
however, they said you cannot not have this extra free slot or free period,
you're required to take this course with Mr. Clark. In doing so, as I said, I
was quite frustrated. I had completed first aid on a number of occasions.
Mr.
Clark had taught me since grade 10. I did complete the bronze, silver and gold
Duke of Edinburgh Award program, which had me at the age of 14 doing everything
from map and compass to hiking from Corner Brook to Stephenville on a
three-night, four-day expedition, kayaking and horseback riding, hiking all over
Gros Morne, you name it, Mr. Speaker. So being out in the woods and out in the
forest was something I was accustomed to. So I did not want to take this first
aid and safety course again.
What I
did, Mr. Speaker – which I have no trouble admitting now, it was a probably a
little tough to admit a number of years ago – I skipped most of Mr. Clark's
classes. In fact, I actually skipped – and he'll acknowledge this, and this is
why this is quite funny today. He's extremely proud this was brought forth and
that I was in a position to do so.
I
skipped so many of his classes that it got to the point come June of my
graduating year of high school, they said: John, if you do not complete this
next necessary assignment, you need to achieve a 70-plus or otherwise you will
actually receive a failing grade in this course as a result of your
non-attendance, losing marks for attendance. Ultimately, this will mean you will
not graduate high school.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I did everything I could to complete this last
assignment. I did pass. On my transcript I believe you will see that I received
a 51 per cent in my first aid and safety course. The 51 per cent, as I
mentioned, was not a reflection of what I was aware of, it was more a reflection
of the fact that I did not wish to go to this particular class.
The
irony of this story is – and I've actually told it at one or two graduations –
when I did receive my transcript and diploma the principal and the
vice-principal, I went down to see them. I actually graduated with three extra
credits. They lied to me in essence. I guess lying is a tough word.
The
reality was, and the lesson I learned from that was the principal and the
vice-principal had informed me they did not want to see a student with any
potential not working. They wanted to see me strive to do more. As a direct
result of that, they essentially tricked me into thinking that I would not
graduate unless I took Mr. Clark's first aid and safety course.
Mr.
Clark and I have a great relationship. He continues to drop into my constituency
office almost weekly to have a chat. I just share that story because it's quite
comical. It certainly provided a nice lesson to me, but it gives me an
opportunity to talk about Mr. Gerry Clark and some of the great work that he and
the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue group do.
Mr.
Speaker, we have search and rescue organizations all across this province. I
believe there are 25 organizations: we have eight in Labrador and 17 here on the
Island. These groups represent some 25,000 hours of volunteer service. There are
1,000-plus members that volunteer with these 25 different organizations. Can you
imagine, 25,000 hours of volunteer service. This is for both ground and inland
search and rescue operations.
In 2017,
they had 100 missions across Newfoundland and Labrador – 100 search and rescue
missions that they were engaged in across this province. On the West Coast in
particular – sometimes in our media, be it CBC evening news or NTV Evening News
or the VOCM News, as we're all aware, there is a bit of an emphasis on the East
Coast, the Avalon region. I'm not saying that to take away from any other areas
or where they want to put their focus. Primarily, it's due to population and the
amount of incidents and things that arise.
We
always see on TV – particularly us at home on the West Coast. We always see on
TV, the rovers are out for a search and rescue mission or the rovers were
engaged in a search and rescue mission. Well, what I can tell you is the
Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue group is quite a busy
operation.
Mr.
Speaker, on the West Coast, just north of Point au Mal on the Port au Port
Peninsula, we have a Cabox, what's referred to as the Roof of the Newf. The
highest elevation in Newfoundland is in the Lewis Hills, which is between Point
au Mal and it moves north towards the Bay of Islands. This particular area,
being the highest elevation in Newfoundland and Labrador, despite what others
sometimes think would be Gros Morne. This particular area presents some extreme
challenges. In the summertime we have individuals that go hiking through this
region and they may get lost or disoriented.
I
actually had a really good friend of mine that I grew up with, and his self and
fiancé at the time had taken off – this was just two summers ago – and they
embarked on a day hike. They had their backpacks and they had a bottle of water
and a few snacks. They embarked on this day hike. When they got to the top of
the Lewis Hills the fog started to come down, the ceiling started to drop and
within less than an hour they did not know where they were. They were completely
lost.
As the
evening hours wore on there was some great concern as to where they were. It's
the folks from the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue group
that immediately left their depot – a lot of these members are on call 24-7,
they have their cellphones and they have their CBs – and they took off. It took
until early the next morning, but through that search, God bless, that they did
in fact find my good friend and his fiancé. It's one example that has stuck out
to me, again given the proximity and closeness of myself and my friend. That's
just one of the many examples of some of the missions they do.
The
other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that's not a summer day hike. The other interesting
part about the Lewis Hills being the highest elevation in Newfoundland and
Labrador, is we have snowmobilers – as you would, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador – all
winter long. You can snowmobile in the Lewis Hills from December until probably
presently. You would have to drive in a little ways now with truck and trailer,
but you can still snowmobile on the West Coast in the mountains.
Individuals get lost, accidents happen. It's these types of volunteer groups,
these research and rescue groups, that we rely on to find us when danger arises.
We hope we never have to rely on them, but in fact if they were not there, we
would not be so fortunate enough to have them.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this particular tax credit is something that was brought up, as I said,
to me from my teacher Mr. Gerry Clark who I mentioned a moment ago, from he and
his members. I also understand as the Member mentioned from Ferryland, as did
the Minister of Finance, it's something that volunteer search and rescue groups
in this province have been asking for, for quite some time. It was new to me
when it was brought forth, and I understand I have to give credit as well to the
former –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please.
MR. FINN:
– minister of Finance who did come out and visit the Stephenville - Port au Port
District. The Minister of Justice actually spent some time with me in
Stephenville, took a tour of the facility and got to meet and speak with some of
our first-hand volunteers, including Mr. Clarke.
One
thing I can tell you, organization is something that they are very strong on.
There is not a single search and rescue mission that they have completed over a
25-year period that is not documented to the T. They have the maps drawn,
everything has been archived and they draw upon these historical searches –
these practical, actual searches that took place – for their practical learning
experiences moving forward. It's certainly remarkable to see the dedication and
organization and the way in which they train their volunteers.
What's
actually important as well, Mr. Speaker, is that these search and rescue groups,
they train with one another. And this is something that we see in a number of
different areas in our province where different volunteer groups partner and get
together. But the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port search and rescue group
often partners with the Barachois search and rescue group, which is
representative for the Member of St. George's - Humber. They partner with their
group out of the Bay of Islands as well, and they do all types of training, be
it rescuing from waterways, from boats overturned, the ice-free rescues, just
certainly a tremendous amount of work. And this is just in their training.
Mr.
Speaker, they're also good community citizens as well. There is not a community
event that I can recall that has happened in the Stephenville - Port au Port
area where the search and rescue volunteers are not present. They often take
care of things like crowd control, Mr. Speaker. The West Coast Senior Hockey
League is up in operation now and we have sometimes upwards to 1,000 or 1,100
citizens in attendance, and the search and rescue volunteers are there for crowd
control. They're also there as first responders in case there might be any
incidents with either players on the ice or citizens in the arena. Then they
also take care of the parking and folks that are leaving to ensure there's a
smooth flow of parking.
They
show up to our Canada Day activities, our municipal awareness days. The amount
of activities that they show up to just to provide and lend their support is
astonishing. What I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is the people who look up to
these volunteers the most is the children. And to see some of these big trucks
come in with the ladders and their command posts and their command centres and
they take the children in and they show them all around, and they show them the
sirens and they show them how to use the CB radios, it's so interesting and the
children are so intrigued. So it's something that (a) they're providing
community service and (b) they're encouraging our youth and our young people to
look up to them.
They
also have a Hug-A-Tree program, is what it's called. A nice program for our
children. It's a way that our search and rescue volunteers actually show our
children and teach them methods of finding their way out, and/or staying put and
learning techniques involved when lost in the woods. It's a very great program
they provide to our children and our youth.
Mr.
Speaker, I just stand to kind of highlight some of the things that the search
and rescue groups have done. I'm extremely proud, certainly very passionate
about the work they do. To see that our volunteer firefighters have been
receiving this type of credit for years and as we know our rural communities, in
particular, depend on our volunteer firefighting services. So to see that our
volunteer firefighter groups have been receiving this tax credit for a number of
years, it was only fitting that we were able to bring it in for our search and
rescue volunteers as well.
So from
now forward, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi
mentioned, this will take effect in 2019. Essentially, what takes effect is that
if a member of a search and rescue volunteer group has logged either service
hours or training hours up to a 200-hour level, they will qualify for up to a
maximum of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit on their provincial income tax.
It's
noteworthy again that it does begin in 2019, and this is primarily because we
are already in the tax year of 2018 so it was not entirely feasible to
backtrack. We have tax tables that we have to adhere to and methods in which we
file our provincial income tax.
So it's
a small gesture in some regard, but to these 1,000-plus volunteers across
Newfoundland and Labrador, this is something that is not a small gesture at all.
They do spend a significant amount of their money for various uniforms, various
pieces of equipment that they may require. While these organizations do their
own fundraising, and they do seek great municipal support as well, this is
something that will allow them a bit of relief when it comes to the end of the
year, and it's a bit of a reward and a bit of a thank you to recognize that we
see the value in the service they provide across our province.
Mr.
Speaker, I won't take much longer, as I understand some of the Members have
alluded to it, I just felt it would be interesting to share a little story about
a teacher of mine who has had a great impact on my life and someone who I'm very
close to.
In
addition to the minister recognizing that I had the opportunity to bring this
forward, it was certainly Mr. Gerry Clark who had brought it forward to me. I
would also be remiss not to thank the minister's staff, in particular, his
deputy minister, Ms. Denise Hanrahan and also one of his directors, Mr. Jay
Griffin, who I actually started communicating with this on I believe last May,
if you will, maybe last April, and we started conversations on it then.
So
certainly a huge thank you to the minister and his staff for bringing this
opportunity to a reality, and a sincere thank you to Mr. Gerry Clark, the
Stephenville - Port au Port search and rescue, as well as all of the search and
rescue organizations across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just take a few minutes to echo, again, some of the key points that my
colleagues here have said, and particularly to my colleague from the District of
Ferryland. I'll start by saying we on this side here, the Official Opposition,
will wholeheartedly be supporting this. We see it as a good piece of
legislation, and we see it as serving a key component to our society and
acknowledging the key work that a group of people do here to service the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will
start by saying I'm confident that no first responder, particularly those in
search and rescue or volunteer firefighters, go in to provide that service based
on a principle that they'll get a tax break down the road. They don't do that.
But adding an incentive here, and having agencies that lobby for that, just
shows the real support that we have for the service that's being provided here.
And it was acknowledged, too, by my other colleagues here at the end of the day
– and people may not know this – there is a cost related to this by those
volunteers. They lose out-of-pocket wear and tear on vehicles, other courses
that they'll pay for out of their own pocket to be part of to upgrade their
skill set.
They'll
also, in certain cases, be part of a fundraising event where they pay or spend
part of the money or donate things to be able to provide an ability to raise
money to provide an ability to buy equipment that enhances not only their
ability, but provides a better service for people.
I had
the privilege of being one of these first responders in a different world and
can really understand the value of the service that's being provided, but
particularly the fact that the general public appreciates that and acknowledge
that. You know at any time when you select a particular group and give them a
break over other groups in society, particularly around taxes, you get a
backlash. One thing you won't get in Newfoundland and Labrador is a backlash for
those volunteer first responders because people see the value. They see the
necessity. They see what it does to keep people safe, what it does to give
people peace of mind, and what it does to ensure that every region of our
province has access to safe services by professionals who are well trained and
are committed to their service there.
So
adding this here – I can remember a few years ago when the firefighters licence
plate came into being as an acknowledgement because in most cases, first
responders – in those cases there, the firefighters – had to respond quickly,
particularly in small areas as firefighters. They would with due diligence but
would have to probably exceed the speed limit, or they would probably have to
take routes that may not have been following all the pure legalities of the law
or the Traffic Act. Police officers and that could identify these people were
doing it to respond to an emergency as part of that.
That was
the first step in us really recognizing – I say us as a society. Here's a group
of volunteers that we have to provide every service incentive so that they can
go do their job. What we're doing here, the incentive we're providing is not
money in their pockets, because I know where their money is going in any little
tax break they'll get down the road. But they're putting that back into
upgrading their own skill set, how they go towards fundraising for pieces of
equipment or how they themselves ensure that they are better equipped to be able
to respond quickly.
I go
back to the point about bringing in an incentive for a particular group when you
know it's good because there's no backlash. I'll just tell a little quick story.
Twenty years ago in a former life I had to respond to one of these situations.
It was in a snowstorm. I was off the main road in a subdivision in the town,
Goulds at the time, before it was part of the city. I couldn't get out in the
snowstorm, got halfway out, almost in part of the middle of the road. The back
of my driveway you couldn't get out to get to the main thing. We had radios in
those days. It wasn't cellphones. I radioed ahead to one of the other people who
had a four-wheel drive. I walked to the main road, got picked up there. We went
and responded to the circumstance.
I came
back the next morning and had to get a plow to come in to plow me out so I could
get out. As the person came while we were doing the plowing, he basically said
what idiot, really, would come out in a blizzard snowstorm at 3 o'clock in the
morning – I said 3 o'clock in the morning – to try to get out to go. The car was
parked there and I think it was going to be $15 for him to plow it out. I told
him I was a volunteer firefighter and that we had a fire at a house. He stopped.
He did all the plowing, put it away. I went to pay him and he said: No, that's
on me. He said that's because he respected what first responders do and the
impact they had.
I
appreciated that, but it gave me a real understanding that everybody understands
and appreciates what other people do in our society. The things we need to do
and the incentives are not there about monetary gain, but we need to make it so
less intrusive for them financially that there would be a benefit.
I'll
tell another little quick story about a young man. I had some businesses at the
time and this young gentleman, who had become a volunteer firefighter also, was
the manager of one of my businesses. He was offered another job paying more in
another part of the city which would have restricted him from being able to
respond, particularly, daytime was the big issue, in the Goulds at the time.
They didn't have so many volunteer firefighters. There was no paid staff at the
time.
Those
other members of the department, who worked in the city or other areas, couldn't
respond in our normal three-to-seven-minute response time. He was offered a job
in the city, turned it down because he did not want to not be able to fulfil his
duty and protect his home community. So there's a testament to a gentleman like
that.
Fortunate enough, two years ago the Paradise fire department, the new building
was opened. I got the privilege to go with the Member then; the two of us are
Members, myself and the former leader of the Opposition. We sat, and as all the
dignitaries of the city, the mayor of the city, the mayor of Mount Pearl,
because it's a regional fire department now as part of the process, got to
unveil that and introduce the captain for that fire department. It was that
young man who had been a volunteer firefighter, who had gone on to become a
professional firefighter and was now the captain for that particular fire
department.
So
there's a connection there between the volunteer, what they do and the service
they provide. Their expectation, and all their expectation is nothing, is that
they can provide the service to the best of their ability.
We have
an ability to improve how they do that by giving some incentives, by being able
to restrict, take away some of the barriers that may be in place, but also just
acknowledging the great work they do and how it's appreciated. This piece of
legislation, with this change to that, does that, but it also recognizes the
other part.
Sometimes we take into account that volunteer firefighters and search and rescue
are one in the same. In principle, their value is one in the same – don't get me
wrong, without a doubt – but people not realizing they're two distinctive
organizations here.
One
being identified was important, and I think was a great first step. It has done
yeoman service to be able to still encourage people to stay there. It's a little
bit of incentive for them to be able to take the little bit of a tax break and
put it back into whatever it is they may do.
I had
one firefighter who had said to me at one point, the tax incentive they get at
the end of it, he takes his family out as a little reward for them being able to
put up with him gone to training, sometimes twice a week, depending on how many
responses they have to respond to.
Also,
putting in search and rescue volunteers is key because, again, as was noted here
by my colleagues, search and rescue volunteers, at a moment's notice, could be
called away to go to whatever particular area they're in to do a particular
search, not knowing what the outcome is going to be. They respond not knowing
exactly what it is they're going to face at the beginning until they're there
and the briefing is done and they set up their response.
In a lot
cases some of these are taking their own equipment. I've had guys who've taken
their own flashlights, their own radios; they're using their cellphones and this
type of thing. They do that without a moment's notice of thinking about that,
without a whim about what impact this is going to have, am I out of my zone for
minutes on my telephone. That's not in any way, shape or form an indication of
them even worrying about that. They do it because of the service they're
providing and the benefit it is to everybody here.
So it's
good to see that this is accepted here, it'll be accepted as part of the federal
tax credit. The fact that the year down the road before it kicks in gives an
opportunity to those agencies – the umbrella agencies that oversee particularly
the first responders who are volunteers – an opportunity to educate their
members on how they can apply for this tax credit.
Everybody in principle is entitled, just some will benefit a little bit more
because of the determination on their taxes they pay in, and where they fit
within the tax regime. The fact we're acknowledging as a society that we value
the work they're doing, and we know they're not doing it for any remuneration,
but we're saying here's an ability for you to get a little bit of a return on
your own investment, knowing that you invest 20 times what we do here.
There is
one little caveat, too, that I've known, because we all get caught up in our own
lives as first responders, that sometimes you make a decision: I don't know if
I'm going to be able to get to training tonight because I've got this, and I
could make it if I worked around it. The little incentive of the 200 hours, that
might be enough, particularly people who are saying, I've got a softball game
tomorrow night but you know what? I want to get to my 200 hours because I want
that tax credit because I can buy a new piece of equipment or I can do something
with my family as a reward for them supporting me as a volunteer.
So,
there's an incentive there along the way for those who are close, to be able to
say you know what, I'm going to make an extra effort there because at the end of
the day I can get an incentive that's going to help me even do my volunteer work
better, and also be able to, if I want, reward those people who are going out of
their way to support me.
Again, I
just want to acknowledge that I think there's a great piece of legislation here.
We will wholeheartedly be supporting this and say congratulations to all first
responders, but particularly those now in the search and rescue volunteer sector
for the great work they've been doing and continue to do, here's a little
incentive to say thank you.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes to have a few words on this bill. I think it's
a very important piece of legislation, a very important initiative coming from
the budget.
Before I
get into my comments, I just want to say I'm a bit dismayed by the revelation
from the Member next to me there. I thought if anything ever happened to me in
terms of first aid and safety, I would be safe because he was there. But 51 per
cent in that course, that's just not good enough. I don't know. I talked to some
other Members around, too. They're a bit shaken by the fact that his
qualifications aren't what we thought they were. Now, despite that fact, he was
an honours student, Mr. Speaker. We're a bit shaken here this morning by that
revelation.
I just
want to say a few words about the search and rescue tax credit. As well as the
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, I also visited the
Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue centre in Stephenville and
talked to Mr. Gerry Clark. He's certainly someone who believes in what he does.
I had an
opportunity to look at the equipment they have there and to review some of the
training programs they have. I looked at some of the things they do and
discussed with him some of the operations that they've been involved in and how
they work with the RCMP and other first responders to emergency situations where
they've been called in.
Also,
the Bay of Islands search and rescue, which serves the northern part of my
district and the Barachois Search and Rescue, which serves the Bay St. George
South and that area of my district. I've seen their equipment and had an
opportunity to talk with some of their members about the work they do.
I'm very
supportive of these changes in the piece of legislation. I want to – as well as
the Minister of Finance did – make sure that the Member for Stephenville - Port
au Port gets credit for what he's done here in bringing this forward to the
bureaucracy to the minister and pushing this issue forward and seeing it through
to reality, Mr. Speaker. It's great to see this.
I also
want to say that I was very impressed last week, I think it was, to hear the
Member for Torngat Mountains talk about his own experience as someone who's been
involved in search and rescue in his area. To talk not only about the sacrifice
that it takes, the time and the dedication, but also the emotional involvement
in being involved in a search and rescue operation. I'm very impressed with his
comments on that last week I must say, Mr. Speaker. It gave me some insight into
the work that search and rescue people do and the importance of the service they
provide in this province.
I just
wanted to express my support for these changes and to say I will be supporting
this piece of legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long. I did want to, for the record, just to endorse Bill 8,
An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. I'm not going to repeat all that's been
said, but basically we all understand the great work of our volunteer
firefighters in our province and certainly, in addition to that, which this bill
addresses, the great work of our volunteer search and rescue personnel. They
don't do it for any remuneration. They do it because they want to help their
community, they want to help citizens, they want to do the right thing, as all
volunteers do.
I think
that when we look at things like volunteer firefighting, like search and rescue
it goes beyond what one could expect as, I'll say, normal volunteer work because
they're actually providing a critical service, something that we absolutely
need, a life-saving service. If they weren't stepping up to the plate to do it
then government really would have no choice but to have to fund this. This is
not something that we could possibly do without. It's not a nice-to-have; it's a
must-have. It's an essential service that they're providing.
To be
able to do something to recognize that in the form of a tax break, I think
that's a good way to acknowledge the very important work that they do, offer a
little bit of an incentive and, as I said, it's the right thing to do.
I will
be supporting the bill. Kudos to the government for bringing this forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank each of the Members of the Legislature today for speaking to this
bill. It is an important bill. I understand the Speaker himself was actually a
member of the Goose Bay search and rescue. As in Goose Bay, other areas of the
province as well where we have volunteer firefighters that don't meet the
200-hour threshold, this will actually assist some of those volunteer members if
they're also volunteering on search and rescue.
The
Member for Ferryland raised a question when he spoke about how many volunteer
firefighters. I'm seeking hat information and will get that to you.
For
certain, there are volunteer firefighters throughout the province that don't
meet the 200-hour threshold and are also search and rescue volunteers and, when
we combine the two of them, will reach the 200 hours that are required. So this
will not only assist search and rescue individuals, it will also assist some of
the volunteer firefighters to reach that 200-hour threshold as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted with the level of support throughout the Legislature for
this amendment to the legislation as it will help a number of volunteers
throughout the province who give such valuable time back to the province and to
the people of the province through search and rescue.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 8 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the –
MS. COADY:
Sorry, Bill 8.
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 8.
It is
moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 8)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When
I spoke in second reading, I did propose a couple of questions in regard
to usage and the uptake on the current
volunteer fire brigades. The minister did indicate when he closed debate that
now, cumulatively, with the search and rescue one in reaching those 200 hours it
probably would reach a number of people. But he did indicate that he would get
those numbers in terms of what's been accessed now currently with volunteer
firefighters.
I
appreciate that. We look forward to seeing that information when he has it
available.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 8.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 8.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 8 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 8 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 5,
second reading of Bill 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before,
I move and second this bill, just to provide an update to the Member for
Ferryland on Bill 8. I do have the information now. Approximately 5,000
volunteer firefighters availed of the tax credit in 2016. We don't have the 2017
numbers yet. There are about 1,000 search and rescue volunteers. So based on
both firefighters and search and rescue, there may be some additional
firefighters that would qualify based on the combining of ours as well.
I
apologize, Mr. Speaker, I know I am supposed to be moved and seconding Bill 7,
but I wanted to give that update.
MR. SPEAKER:
We're all about efficiency.
MR. OSBORNE:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 7 entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.”
(Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
amendments in the Revenue Administration
Act relate to the health and post-secondary education tax; otherwise more
commonly referred to as the payroll tax. Mr. Speaker, this is a routine
amendment and in this year's budget, we did give a tax break to a number of
businesses in the province by increasing the threshold on the provincial payroll
tax or HAPSET from $1.2 million to $1.3 million. So essentially, what that means
is that anybody who was paying less than $1.2 million in payroll didn't have to
pay payroll tax.
We've
increased the threshold to $1.3 million, so anybody paying less than $1.3
million in payroll now does not have to pay the payroll tax. Anybody who was
between the $1.2 million and $1.3 million will be a savings of somewhere upwards
to $2,000 less tax that they would have to pay. Anybody with payroll above $1.3
million will save $2,000 in payroll or the tax on the HAPSET.
There
are 50 additional businesses that won't have to pay any payroll tax as a result
of this amendment and there is another, I think, 1,200 businesses throughout the
province that will get a $2,000 tax break or upwards to a $2,000 tax break.
So 75
per cent of the private sector employment in this province is by small business.
This is something, in consultation with the Board of Trade – the Board of Trade
had asked me to look at the other Members of our caucus who had received
feedback from the Board of Trade or from small businesses in their districts;
had asked for this amendment. We'd, obviously, like to see it higher.
What
I've committed to and the Premier and our government has committed to, Mr.
Speaker, is that this is the first step. As we're able to see that the province
is on a more sound fiscal footing, we'll see further changes to the payroll tax
as well as other taxes. We're committed to ensuring that we provide benefit to
small businesses in this province where we can do that.
One of
the other benefits that we've provided in this year's budget – which will help
not only every citizen in the province who owns a vehicle but will also help
businesses – are the changes to the automobile insurance. That change this year
will benefit small businesses as well and make it a little bit less expensive
compared to last year and the previous year on the insurance. It's not only the
payroll tax that will help small businesses this year; it is also the changes to
the insurance, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at the number of people that are employed in small businesses in this
province, as I said, roughly 75 per cent of private enterprise employment is by
small business. They are the backbone of the provincial economy and they employ
a number of people. Whether it's a convenience store, Mr. Speaker, or a small
retail shop or a small engineering firm, whatever the case may be, small
business makes up the vast majority of private sector employment throughout the
province.
In
consultation with the St. John's Board of Trade, with chambers of commerce
throughout the province, we've made this change. There are a number of other
changes that we've made in this year's budget that will provide some benefit to
businesses as well, Mr. Speaker. Part of it is changes that we're looking at
making for private pension that small businesses have put in place and making
those changes. That was another recommendation brought to us by the Board of
Trade, as was the automobile insurance.
Mr.
Speaker, we are committed to making it easier for small business to operate in
this province. As we get our fiscal situation under control and continue towards
surplus in 2022-23, we'll continue to look at ways that we can not only make it
easier on small business but on people living in the province, and ease the tax
burden on people living in the province as well.
Mr.
Speaker, some of the other initiatives we've done in this year's budget that
focus on small business in the province is the five-year, $37 million Canadian
Agricultural Partnership, $14.8 million funding through the province. A number
of our farmers throughout the province are in fact small businesses, but the
employment they provide and the produce they provide, the food sustainability is
important to this province.
Part of
what we're looking at with that program, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural program,
is increasing the number of farms in the province and increasing the amount of
produce produced in the province to not only increase our food sustainability,
it'll create employment and get us back to – in the 1930s, 100 per cent of the
vegetables consumed in the province were produced in the province. It's now at
about 10 per cent.
You look
at the $10 million Atlantic Fisheries Fund and what that will leverage for small
business enterprise in this province. So we're proud of what we've been able to
do there and the partnership with the federal government.
You look
at the investment in tourism that is in this year's budget. The number of
employees that many small businesses throughout the province provide to people
in the province, the employees. It's 20,000 people employed now in the tourism
sector in this province and that is significant.
We're
looking at $600,000 invested in four regional Destination Management
Organizations to continue to help the tourism industry and to grow the tourism
industry and employ more people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last
year, Mr. Speaker, we increased the funding to the film and television industry
from $2 million to $4 million. We have $4 million invested in this year's budget
again. When you look at the fact that last year or the year before last, it was
a $40 million industry in this province. This year, it grew from $40 million to
$50 million in the last fiscal year in this province, employing 640 people. That
is actually quite significant; 640 people in film and television in this
province.
It's an
area where we're focused on continuing to grow that. Another example of small
business in the province but a large number of employees. Many people in the
province would be quite surprised to know that there are 640 people employed in
film and television in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, a key element of growing a strong and diversified economy is the $35
million that we've allocated in this year's budget to support economic
development, research and development and investment attraction. That's another
area where we're focused on trying to grow small business, diversify the economy
and create employment in this province.
While
oil and gas is very important – and I will not understate the importance of that
industry if you look at Advance 2030,
Mr. Speaker, and what we're doing there – we also need to focus on diversifying
the economy. While oil and gas revenues increase and we continue to grow the oil
and gas industry in the province and the number of employees, if we can get back
to the levels of production and the level of royalties from the oil and gas
industry, we can look at putting that into a legacy fund. We can look at paying
down the province's debt with that – because we've diversified the economy,
because we've given opportunity for the aquaculture industry to double the
number of employees, Mr. Speaker, which is what we're focused on. We're already
seeing the benefits of that.
You look
at the agriculture industry and the potential that the agriculture industry has.
If you look at the technology sector, Mr. Speaker, that's growing by leaps and
bounds. In fact, every person who graduates in this province from IT courses is
quickly gobbled up by the IT sector. We need to look at ways of increasing the
number of students that are going through IT programs in this province. That
industry is growing in this province and now employs 4,000 people in IT.
It
doesn't matter where you are in the world. You can be in St. John's,
Newfoundland, you can be in London, you can be in Toronto and you can be in New
York. You can operate an IT industry just as easily in St. John's as you can in
New York City. We're focused on growing that sector of the economy, Mr. Speaker.
Those
are the things we've done through The Way
Forward to diversify the economy, to strengthen the economy and to employ
more people so that as oil and gas and our strategy on 2030 continues to grow
and 7,500 people over the next 12 years – 7,500 additional people in the oil and
gas industry. We're also looking at creating employment opportunities within
small business in this province. We're focused on that and we will do what we
can. The payroll tax is one example of what we're doing to try to make it easier
for small businesses in this province to employ more people and to succeed.
You look
at the Cabinet Committee on Jobs and The
Way Forward, which is primarily driven by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, he is
absolutely dedicated to diversifying the economy and finding opportunities in
this province to ensure that our economy is strong in all regions of the
province. We're focused on a number of sectors throughout the province so that
all regions of the province benefit from the diversification of the economy and
creating other employment opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, you look at the federal government's Ocean Supercluster initiative.
This province's Premier went to work and focused heavily on attracting that to
Atlantic Canada and we did. Newfoundland and Labrador will be the primary
beneficiary of the Ocean Supercluster. The technology sector, the IT sector,
will benefit as a result of the Ocean Supercluster sector brought to this
province and the Atlantic region.
Again,
we will be the primary beneficiary of that in this province. It's because of the
work of our Premier and the Cabinet Committee on Jobs, Mr. Speaker, in
attracting that Supercluster to this area. There will be more than 165
businesses in our advanced technology sector that will benefit from that. Right
now, that sector generates $1.6 billion in annual revenue in this province. That
will continue to grow, largely in part because of the Ocean Supercluster and the
benefits that will bring, but in large part because of our focus on the
technology sector and the opportunities that can bring to our province.
Mr.
Speaker, you look at the fish and seafood production in this province, it's
exceeded $1.3 billion in the last fiscal year. I believe that's the second year
in a row that it's exceeded $1.3 billion – that's the third year, sorry, that
it's exceeded $1 billion; it's up to $1.3 billion last year. That industry
employs 16,000 people in over 400 communities in our province.
That's
an area, a traditional industry, that goes back over 500 years in our province,
but it's an industry that, to a certain degree, we've lost focus on. We need to
refocus on that industry and the employment that it brings, especially to
smaller rural communities in our province. It's the very reason for our
existence in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was founded on the fishery. Our
government has been focused on growing that industry and creating additional
benefits through that industry.
Mr.
Speaker, you look at our infrastructure plan; $3 billion over five years. That's
4,900 full-time jobs annually as a result of the infrastructure program in this
province. That's one of the ways our province has turned the corner, continues
to turn the corner compared to what we saw in the province in December of 2015
or January of 2016. These things are happening. They've been happening
throughout the province. People are starting to see a greater sense of optimism
than they did in 2016. It's primarily because of the focus on diversifying the
economy and creating the benefits as a result of that.
You look
at the work that we've done with Husky Energy; $3 billion economic benefit to
the province over the life of the project and 5,000 person years of employment
as a result. That was primarily the Premier and the Minister of Natural
Resources working with Husky Energy to bring that project to reality in this
province. You look at the money invested in PAL Aerospace. One hundred and fifty
jobs already created as a result of an agreement that our province government
has reached with PAL Aerospace and the investment that our government has made
in that sector.
Aerospace is an area that our province should be focused on more heavily, and we
are. That's an area that we're looking at, Mr. Speaker, to expand. We have
companies in this province that are world leaders in aerospace that are working
globally right here from Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an area that I believe
our province can expand, that we can grow and we can strengthen that sector here
in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will.
Mr.
Speaker, if you look at Canada Fluorspar. Again, the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Premier, the work they've done in that area; 3,000 person
years of employment and another 525 spinoff jobs as a result of that. It is the
dedication and hard work looking at areas throughout the province where we can
create opportunity for small business and we can grow the economy. That's what
we've been focused on.
I said
on budget day in this province that this province has a promising future. We're
dedicated, as a government, Mr. Speaker, of making it a more prosperous province
and we're starting to see the results of that work that this government has put
into doing it.
We'll
continue to see the results, Mr. Speaker. It's like a large luxury liner. You
don't turn it quickly, it turns very slowly. If you've ever seen a cruise ship
in St. John's Harbour turning around, it takes a long time to turn that around,
but we're starting to see the turnaround in this province. The province is in
much better shape today than it was two years ago. We're starting to see the
benefits and the results of the work that has been started by this government
and we continue to focus on it.
Mr.
Speaker, we take economic activity and supporting small business very seriously
in this province. The changes that we've made to the payroll tax are a
significant first step in reducing the payroll tax even further. The 50
businesses that no longer have to pay payroll tax as a result and the 1,200
businesses that will pay $2,000 less this year than they paid last year, while
that's a small amount – one would say $2,000 less in payroll tax – it is
actually significant. Because it's the commitment that we're making to small
businesses and the fact that we are committing that as we become more fiscally
sound in this province, we'll see further reductions to the payroll tax.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy with and proud of the amendment that we're making here and how it will
help small businesses in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased this morning to rise to speak to Bill 7, An Act to Amend the
Revenue Administration Act. This deals with, specifically, payroll tax as it
relates to small business. Small businesses are a huge part of our free economy
when you look at all aspects of it. Well into the mid-90 per cent of business
activity is classified as small business.
This
deals with providing an exemption to those small businesses in regard to a
payroll tax and being exempt from paying this tax. Anytime, from a business
perspective, you're given an exemption, it allows that business to operate more
efficiently to look at free investment in their activities they carry out, or
sale of goods and services. It certainly looks at remuneration that's being
provided to their staff. It opens up a whole array of options with this tax and
others in regard to leaving more money for the small business leaders in
companies to make decisions related to how they operate their company.
I know
back in our time, in our administration, I think originally this was about
$500,000. I think incrementally over the years in various budgets, this was
increased and to allow these small businesses to be exempt from this tax. Again,
this year, in Budget 2018, the current
government has moved the tax exemption as well to $1.2 million.
Now,
specifically, based on, I guess, companies and what they paid in the past, there
are, I think, approximately 50 additional companies will be exempt from paying
the tax. What's remaining out of those that pay the tax, 1,200 I believe is what
the number is, will pay up to $2,000 less in tax each year.
So the
minister talked about economic development, he talked about diversification, he
talked about Husky, he talked about tourism and small business and various other
aspects of the economy. So all of that collectively is tied into driving
activity, driving employment, driving investment, allowing business to expand,
allow new business to be created and that's all about economic activity, new
wealth and employing people, sustaining communities and regions. It's all
interrelated and this is just one component, an important component, but it is
necessary in regard to that incentive.
Now, the
minister talked about The Way Forward
plan, he talked about the Cabinet Committee on Jobs, I think he may have alluded
to some indicators in the economy. Some of the things we've seen over the past
couple of years with some of the challenges, we haven't seen a lot of those in
the right direction. It has to be comprehensive in terms of how we deal with
that environment and make that environment conducive to people who want to live
here from a personal income tax point of view and also from an income tax point
of view, from a corporate tax point of view and things like small business. So
it has to be comprehensive, it has to be to an environment that invites people
to want to stay here, have their families grow up here and have new people to
come into the employment realm.
We
talked about the public service, talked about – I think there's a number like
5,000 people who are coming out of the public service over the next number of
years. So how do we adapt to that? How do we make that through taxation and
through programs that we have, governments have? How do you incentivize people
to want to live here and be part of our region going forward or province? It's
important.
You look
at things like our demographics in terms of our population and the rate of aging
that causes concern. It's all tied back to that environment and things like this
and payroll tax and what that environment is like and how it allows investment
and supports it and drives it. Then, at the end of the day, makes sure our
economy is functioning and functioning well and doing what it needs to do.
There's
not a lot further I'm going to say on this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is in the right
direction. Government needs to do more of this. We hear a lot of terms like the
way forward, committee on jobs, all of these other things. We're doing this and
doing that, but the indicators to date doesn't show that we're getting the
return we need to get.
In a
small way, this is a step in the right direction. It is going to help, and I'd
certainly encourage you to do much more of this and be far more definitive in
terms of the direction we're taking and how we're getting there. I think that
will be to the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not for this
generation but the next generation to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I'm
happy to have the opportunity to also stand and speak to Bill 7, the amendment
to the Revenue Administration Act. An
important bill because, as the minister has pointed out, and also the Member for
Ferryland, by changing the exemption threshold for the payroll tax to $1,300,000
from $1,200,000, we are doing something that's really important for small
business. There's no doubt about that.
We're a
small province and so when we say that we now will have 50 more small businesses
who do not have to pay that payroll tax, I think that's important, and the fact
that there will be over 1,200 who will be saving $2,000, that's important too.
Two thousand is not a large amount but I suppose every bit helps. If it were an
individual who got the $2,000 break, I think that would be very, very
significant, but even for a small business, $2,000 less I'm sure is helpful.
I'm glad
about this. It's an important thing to do. I agree with the minister in that,
but I think it points to the need that we have to look at our taxation system. I
think this government has said that it wants to review our taxation system, but
I see no signs that they're doing that. We can't just be doing things in
piecemeal.
So while
this is something that is going to help, I think we need to look at our whole
taxation structure. We need to look at our income tax structure in particular.
We need to look at the corporate tax. Is our corporate tax where it should be? I
don't think so. I think we could have a higher corporate tax, getting at larger
corporations. Not the small business but larger corporations. So we do need to
look at where revenue can come in through our taxation system that isn't done on
the backs of individuals.
So, for
example, our consumer taxes have gone up under this government. We now have – in
the revenue from taxation – 30 per cent of the revenue is coming from consumer
tax. That's very problematic because that means that low-income individuals
really get hit when consumer taxes go up or new consumer taxes are put in place,
which has happened with this government.
So this
government doesn't mind giving $40 million –
MR. SPEAKER:
Ask the Member to please continue.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That was helpful.
That
this government continues to find major breaks for large corporations when it
comes to subsidization.
We just
had a perfect example with what's happened with Canopy Growth and the way in
which this government is not afraid to put huge amounts of money into larger
corporations.
So we
really do need to look at the whole of our taxation system. This government has
said they're going to review it. I don't see any signs of that happening. While
I'm very happy with this move – really pleased with it and happy to support this
bill – I think we have a larger issue when it comes to taxation revenue and who
is paying what, who is carrying the brunt and who is this government really
supporting.
It takes
little steps like this supporting small business, I would say they do an awful
lot more for the large corporate sector. I think this is something that does
need to be reviewed, but I am supporting this bill and will be happy to vote for
it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to just speak a couple of minutes on this bill. It's a very important bill.
It's important to the small businesses in our province. It's a small change but
it's a change. The minister said it will save $2,000 to businesses that have
revenues of $1.3 million.
It's so
important, you know, and I know the minister was speaking about the positive
things, diversifying the economy and whatnot. Mr. Speaker I have the opportunity
in a lot of cases every day to speak to small business owners in our province,
and in my district alone there are a lot of people that are involved in the
housing industry. With the economy the way it is right now in Newfoundland and
Labrador, housing starts are down. I know they are in my district and they're
down overall.
A lot of
small businesses are finding it very, very difficult. While we're making these
small changes, people in general are being taxed so much because of this
government across the way that they have less to spend. When people have less to
spend the one people that are getting affected more so than large corporations –
your Walmarts and different industries like that – are the small business,
because people don't have the money to repair that roof, they don't have the
money to do the renovations on their houses, they don't have the money to build
new homes.
I'm
seeing it in my district big time, that small businesses have been really
affected by things like the levy which has taken money out of people's pockets.
People are really finding the tax increases and the HST, tax increases to
different business; people are really finding it difficult. The gas tax and
different taxes that this government across the way has brought in, the big
people they're really affecting are small businesses, and small business is
hurting.
While
people say over there on the other side – and they'll be complimentary, we're
doing this, we're diversifying – they should talk to small business owners
because I've talked to them in my district all the time. I've talked to
construction people that are telling me they don't know if they're going to hire
people this year because people are not building homes.
I've
talked to a roofing company only this weekend and normally what they do, they're
booked right solid, right on through the summer. It's a job to get them to do a
job even until September. This year, once he gets to July, he said I don't know
where the work is going to come from because housing starts are down so low.
What
people are telling me is that the effects – and this is all to do with small
businesses, and I'm sure it's in rural Newfoundland and it's in urban
Newfoundland, we see it everywhere – that people are not spending money like
they used to. People don't have the money that they had to spend. When that
happens, people don't spend money, the number one effect that has on people and
business, are small business owners.
We can
have all the big corporations we got, we can have the oil industry, we can have
mining industry, but the heart and soul of Newfoundland and Labrador are small
business. Small business is what's going to keep our economy going. It's going
to keep rural Newfoundland going. It's your corner shop, it's your roofing
companies, it's the people that are building houses, it's people that are –
paving driveway company, if you look at paving companies and stuff like this.
These taxes that that government across the way has introduced to people in this
province have hurt our economy so much. One group in the economy that it has
hurt more than anybody is small business.
I'm sure
every Member across the way can talk about different companies they've been
talking to and they're hurting. There are a lot of people in this province
hurting. We got to do our best to make sure that small business survive. They're
the key to all aspects of our society, whether it's rural or urban, and I think
we could be doing a whole lot more. While you get up and say we're doing a
little thing by increasing the threshold from $1.2 million to $1.3 million,
you've done an awful lot to hurt small business in this province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I'm not going to take very long but I do want to, I guess for the record,
express my views on this bill. I certainly support the bill wholeheartedly.
As has
been said by, I think, all speakers, I think we all recognize the value of small
business and the contribution they make to our economy, to our communities,
whether it be through the provision of employment, payment of taxes and a lot of
the social good that businesses do in our communities. It's important that we do
what we can to support them. It's important that to do what we can to help them
prosper, help them grow and I really think this is a step in the right
direction.
I have
had conversations in the past and correspondence, emails and so on, as well as
face to face and telephone calls with – one person who comes to mind is Vaughn
Hammond with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. One of the things
he has said on behalf of his members – and he has been quite clear – he said,
cut out all these big grants and so on to businesses and just focus on things
like reducing the payroll tax, eliminating the payroll tax and so on and put the
focus there and let business survive and thrive on its own without big
government handouts.
He has
said that he would prefer that that would be the route we would go, and I tend
to agree with him. Although, I understand there are some primary industries and
so on – and certainly if you're into some of our more rural areas that are so
dependent on particular operations to provide employment for the communities to
survive, I understand there will be times when government may have to step in.
In
general, when it comes to business, particularly big business, there have been
times when I've questioned whether they really needed taxpayers' money in order
to accomplish whatever it is they wanted to accomplish. I think they could've
done it on their own without that, and we could've taken that money and put it
into things like we're doing here today in terms of reducing, or eliminating for
that matter, the payroll tax for small business and let them survive and thrive
on their own.
With
that said, this is a good move and I will be supporting it 100 per cent. Once
again, two in a row, kudos to the government on another good move today.
Thank
you Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now
he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I thank
all Members for their contribution to the debate here today. I will take
exception to some of the comments made by the Member for Cape St. Francis.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say here in this Legislature today that when the baton was
passed from the former administration to this administration, one of the things
we couldn't talk about at that time because the economy would've absolutely
crashed. Now that administration knew it. That administration knew, Mr. Speaker,
the situation fiscally that the province was in.
They
didn't provide a mid-year update, which is traditional in this province, because
they were heading into an election and they didn't want to tell the people of
the province what a mess they made. They wouldn't provide a mid-year update. We
called for a mid-year update. They told the people of the province there was a
$1.1 billion deficit – $1.1 billion deficit. When we formed government in
December of 2015 we found out it was $2.7 billion. Almost three times what they
said it was – $2.7 billion deficit.
We were
told, Mr. Speaker, within 48 hours of the new Premier taking office. So nobody
can tell me they didn't know if it was that urgent that the Department of
Finance officials had to inform the new Premier within 48 hours that if they
didn't do an emergency release of Treasury bills the province wouldn't have been
able to make payroll. Now nobody can tell me they didn't know that, but they
wouldn't tell the public.
They'll
stand over there and say, you shouldn't have raised taxes. You shouldn't have
done this. You shouldn't have prevented the bond-rating agencies from putting
the clamps on it, Mr. Speaker, because we would've loved to have been able to
see that, is what they'll say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is the bond rating agencies very quickly told this
province, the new government, that drastic measures had to be taken. Nobody in
this province, nobody in this House – nobody on this side of the House – likes
the tax measures that were put in place in 2016.
But if
we didn't do it to eliminate the $2.7-billion deficit that they figured they
didn't have to tell the people of the province existed, or the fact that the
province wouldn't have been able to make payroll – if we didn't address those
issues immediately, the bond rating agencies would have stepped in and taken
drastic action, Mr. Speaker. The lending agencies would have cut us off. There
was a choice that had to be made. If it was a popularity contest, nobody would
have put taxes in place, but we had to address a very real and very drastic
situation.
Mr.
Speaker, when I became Minister of Finance I committed to the people of this
province that I was going to take a balanced approach and I believe I have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
I believe I have, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
As the province becomes more
fiscally comfortable, as we start to move closer toward surplus, we will reduce
the financial burden, the tax burden on the people of the province. That has
started, Mr. Speaker. We are reducing taxes as we can afford to do so.
We've
brought it from a $2.7-billion deficit that the people opposite left in place,
Mr. Speaker, down to less than a billion dollars this year. We are headed in the
right direction but we understand, and we understand from the bond rating
agencies and from the lending agencies, that borrowing – now, I'm going to go
back a step a second before I complete that sentence.
When we
took office in December of 2015, just to service the deficit, Mr. Speaker, the
province was borrowing on average $4.38 million a day – a day. They didn't think
that was appropriate to tell the people of the province. We've gotten that down
to about $2 million a day today.
The bond
rating agencies and the lending agencies tell us it's still not sustainable, but
it's much better than what they left the people of the province. Am I proud of
the taxes that were put in place? Absolutely not, but I can tell you they were
absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker.
You look
at the employment numbers that we have today, they're comparable to 2011. In
2011 this province was saying they were historically high. Are they as good as
they were in 2015? No, but we had three megaprojects in 2015, Mr. Speaker. As we
come off those megaprojects, we see a contraction in the employment numbers in
this province. We see a contraction in the employment numbers in this province
because of the fact that we're coming off those megaprojects.
The
payroll tax announcement that we've made here, Mr. Speaker, will help small
businesses. The measures that we've put in place to diversify the economy is
putting the province back in the right direction. While the former government
focused solely on the oil industry, they forgot the rest of the economy.
Things
were going so well with the oil industry they just expected that would continue
forever. They budgeted $120 a barrel of oil, Mr. Speaker. That wasn't the
reality. In their 2015 budget they budgeted that oil was going to continue to
grow by $8 a barrel per year. That, we know, didn't happen.
In their
own Estimates book in 2015 they projected that employment numbers were going to
decline and unemployment numbers were going to increase. Mr. Speaker, they also
clouded those numbers by saying that Alderon was going to be our reality and Bay
du Nord was going to be a reality. It was going to start in 2015. We were going
to start seeing huge employment increases again in 2016 as a result of those two
projects. But those things didn't happen.
They
projected $6.8 billion in capital investment as a result of those projects and
12,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker. If you factor out the 12,000 jobs they were promising,
and factor in the fact they were projecting employment numbers decreasing and
unemployment numbers increasing – we're way ahead of what they projected if you
factor in the 12,000 jobs.
Let's be
honest, Mr. Speaker, when we say there was a very difficult reality this
province had to deal with in December of 2016, in the budget of 2016, nobody
wanted those tax measures but they were absolutely necessary. As we are able to
reduce taxes in this province, we will do it. We're going to do it by
diversifying the economy, by making the economy stronger, by growing jobs in
this province, by focusing on the economy, growing jobs and reducing taxes as
we're able to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is good for small business.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 7 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.” (Bill 7)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Clause 2.
Shall
clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 7.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 7.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 7 carried without amendment, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 7 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 7 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MS.
COADY:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS.
COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
I
call from Orders of the Day, Order 2, Committee of Supply.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, that the House do now resolve itself into a
Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates of the Legislature.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee to review the Estimates of Supply.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering the Estimates of the Legislature.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01.
Shall it
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.02.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.02.
Shall it
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I want
to use this opportunity to make a few more points with regard to the situation
in this province. The Committee of the Whole being part of our budget
discussions here I think, I can do that.
Of all
the things that I've said over the past few weeks, one issue that I haven't
spoken to is one that nags at me and I want to raise it. That is the situation,
not all over the place, but many situations that we have with regard to some of
our elderly people, in particular, who are in care, extended care.
I have
in my office right now at least four files of families who have come to me about
the situation of their loved ones. A couple of them relate to the Pleasantview –
I forget what it's called, but the new facility, relatively new now in
Pleasantville. Some refer to smaller situations in different parts of the
province. I think all of them are related to situations here under Eastern
Health and some in the Clarenville area.
It's
really frustrating for the relatives, the families of these people who are in
situations that aren't meeting their needs – not because of the workers, but
because there aren't enough workers, because there aren't enough people in care
to take care of them.
Now, I
have experience and heard of some situations in smaller places where people are
very happy, and where their needs are being met and where they're not falling
between the cracks. But we have a lot of situations where people do fall between
the cracks. It's one case in particular that I keep talking to the family about.
It's a case – and I have probably two cases like this – where the loved one, a
parent or an elderly brother or a spouse, is in a facility being taken care of,
gets sick, has to move into the hospital to be taken care of there. What I'm
getting from people is the lack of communication between the different parts of
the system, not the best decisions being made, the situation of the person not
really being seen as it should be seen, and people falling between the cracks.
They
really feel there's no place that they can go with their complaints. Some of
them, you know, have written the CEOs of agencies. Some of them have documented
things that they're really concerned about. Some of them have gone to the
Citizens' Representative. They really feel that they're stymied. There's no
place to go.
I think
we really do have a need for a review of the long-term care in this province.
The facility in Pleasantville – I have no idea how that building could've gotten
built the way that it is. It's a building in which I don't know if anybody is
happy. I hate going into it. The very building itself doesn't build up a sense
of people being taken care of.
Again,
I'm not talking about the workers. I'm talking about the system. I'm talking
about not having enough workers, not having in some cases enough nurses on night
duty in some of our long-term care facilities. We have a lot of things not going
right in our long-term care facilities.
We have a lot of things not going right in our long-term care facilities
and it really bothers me. I feel helpless as an MHA when people come to me. Some
of them say: Yes, the facility has meetings, family meetings once a month. I go
to the meetings, I raise the same issues and I get nowhere. I have documentation
from family members of the things that have happened; a loved one, probably a
parent, being in bed for hours before being even taken care of for the day.
It's multiple and I just really feel – I would be remiss in not bringing
this issue, in the context of budget discussion, to the floor of the House
because I cannot be the only MHA who's getting these phone calls and these
letters and these emails. I can't be the only one. I know I'm not the only one
because, in some cases, I'm getting them from people outside of my district who
are frustrated because they've tried to communicate within their district and
the government MHA, maybe, is not paying attention to them. So they finally, in
frustration, will come to somebody like me – because I had a profile as the
health critic – so they come hoping that I'm going to be able to help them. I
can't help them. I can try. I can bring their concerns forward. I do that, but
we really do have a problem in our long-term care in this province.
I keep saying it's not everywhere. I know that some facilities are
wonderful, but we do have a problem. I don't think that agencies are working
together, the different departments are working together to really ensure that
people's needs are being met.
I don't see the government listening to things like the Nurses' Union
with regard to the role of RNs in long-term care. I just don't see them paying
attention to the issues that are there. It's a major issue and, like I said, I
can't believe that I'm the only MHA who has people coming complaining about our
long-term care in this province.
I'm not going to beat this to death. I'm making my point. I really felt I
had to stand and make this point because it is such a major concern to me. I'm
glad that I've done it. I know nobody right here at this moment is going to do
anything about this for me, but I'm going to continue talking about this because
it's rampant, because there's too much of it there.
Yes, we have good places, we have people being taken care of but we have
other situations where people are not being taken care of. They're lonely.
They're in their beds without people paying too much attention to them, simply
because there are not enough staff to give the kind of personal care that is
needed, and it is that personal care.
I'm aware of somebody, I met this person, she's now dead but she couldn't
see, had very bad hearing and was put in the lockdown unit because nobody knew
what to do with her. It wasn't the place where she should have been. She had no
social communication – very little, I won't say no – very, very little social
communication.
The
assessment that was done was a wrong assessment. She was not a person who should
have been in that situation, but she had no family here to voice for her,
somebody like me. I had a relative, I used to visit her; she wasn't a next of
kin. There was nothing that could be done and the thing is that it's not the
fault of the workers. It's the fault that we do not have adequate staffing of
many of – well, of our public facilities. I mean these are the ones that I'm
talking about.
We do
have a problem. We need a review of what's happening at Pleasant View. We
absolutely need a review of what's going on over there. Probably having said
this now publicly, will put this in writing to the Minister of Health and
Community Services because I think it's a direction in which we're going to have
to go.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
Subheads 1.1.03 through
7.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.03 to
7.1.01inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.03 through 7.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Legislature, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Legislature carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move that the Committee rise and report having passed without amendment the
Estimates of the Legislature.
CHAIR:
It is moved that the
Committee rise and report the Estimates of the Legislature.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of Supply.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Supply has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report that they have passed without amendment the
Estimates of the Legislature.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the hour, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board, that we adjourn until 2 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn until 2 o'clock.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House stands in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Thank
you.
Recess
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I'd like to welcome the Members back after recess. I'd
also like to welcome several visitors that we have in our galleries.
First of all, in the Speaker's gallery today I'd like
to welcome representatives from the Combined Councils of Labrador, an
organization that has been around for more than 40 years. With us today we have
the president from L'Anse au Loup, Mayor Trent O'Brien; the treasurer from
L'Anse-au-Clair, the mayor, Mr. Chad Letto; from the Labrador Straits, the
vice-president from Forteau, he's the mayor, Mr. Jim Roberts; from Southeast
Labrador, the vice-president, he's a Mary's Harbour councillor, Mr. Harold
Rumbolt; for the Central Labrador vice-president, Happy Valley-Goose Bay mayor,
Mr. Wally Andersen, a former MHA of the House; Labrador North vice-president,
Makkovik councillor, Elizabeth Evans-Mitchell; and the executive director of the
Combined Councils of Labrador, Ms. Margaret Rumbolt.
A very great welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
As
I say, we have various mediums through which people are able to watch us. Today,
watching through our broadcast, I'd like to send special greetings to Mrs.
Marsha Alexander's grade seven class from Lourdes Elementary on the Port au Port
Peninsula. They are tuning into our broadcast today and are the subject of a
Member's statement this afternoon.
A great welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today for Members' statements we will hear from the hon. Members for the
Districts of Exploits, St. George's - Humber, Stephenville - Port au Port, Burin
- Grand Bank and Terra Nova.
The hon. the Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the Trinity
United Church of Botwood on their October 16, 2016, celebration of 90 years of
good works in the community.
I had the pleasure of celebrating this milestone with the
congregation, town leadership and friends from far and near at what was a
memorable day of worship and the breaking of bread.
For 90 years, the Trinity United Church has been
ministering and providing spiritual guidance to the community of Botwood. Mr.
Speaker, on a personal note, this is the church that, as a youth, I attended
many activities throughout the years and it's the church that I have the
pleasure of being greeted by each and every morning.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in
wishing the Trinity United Church congratulations on these 90-plus years, and
Godspeed on their continued march to a centenarian celebration.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID: Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of dedicated volunteers on the
Southwest Coast of the province who are combining their love of the outdoors
with a respect for fallen soldiers.
Colin and Cindy Seymour, along with other volunteers in the
area, are ready to place 158 yellow ribbons – one for each Canadian soldier who
lost their life in the war in Afghanistan – along the hiking trail leading to
Mark Rock mountain just outside South Branch. There is a monument honouring Sgt.
Craig Gillam of that community. Gillam died in Afghanistan on October 3, 2006.
He was 40 years old.
Members of the Gillam family say they are honoured by the
dedication being put into the hiking trail up to Mark Rock. Knowing that people
still remember and care about the soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice is
truly touching.
I ask all Members of this House to join with me in showing
their appreciation and dedication to this group of volunteers.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN: Mr.
Speaker, our children will eventually be our future leaders and as such,
preparing them for this inevitability requires education and training in
leadership roles. In a recent visit to Lourdes Elementary on the Port au Port
Peninsula, I saw first-hand how valuable this practice can be.
Mrs. Marsha Alexander's grade seven social studies class
has undertaken a practical learning exercise in which the classroom has become a
mini replica of our House of Assembly. With only 13 students, the ad hoc House
of Assembly required some minor tweaking that is unable
to include all electoral
districts; however, this has only encouraged the students to engage in much
broader debates.
Interestingly, in this classroom, the student who plays the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, Katie Gastia, also happens to be the minister of
Transportation and Works and, conveniently, the premier happens to represent my
neighbouring district in St. George's - Humber.
Hats off
to Mrs. Marsha Alexander for taking a unique approach to teaching our children
about our political system while inspiring these leaders of tomorrow. Also, a
sincere thank you to her students and school principal, Ms. Alison Marche, for
inviting me to their school.
Thank
you. Enjoy the broadcast.
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, during the fall sitting of the House, new laws were passed to help curb
impaired driving. Amongst those advocating for changes were various chapters of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the province, including the Burin Peninsula
chapter.
MADD
Burin Peninsula does not confine its activities to lobbying decision makers.
Rather, it is very proactive in tackling the social problem of drunk driving.
Recently, it again demonstrated that proactive approach when it brought together
students from across the Burin Peninsula at the Fortune Arena.
As it
did three years ago in Marystown, MADD Burin Peninsula held a mock crash, an
event where various stakeholders, such as first responders, the RCMP and local
performers, came together to present a realistic scenario of a vehicle accident
with horrific results, Mr. Speaker.
Laws to
deal with impaired driving are important, but it's MADD's belief that education
is also vital in driving home that message. In this case, education came from a
very realistic and moving presentation, Mr. Speaker.
I call
on all Members of this hon. House to join me in thanking the many participants
who joined forces to make this event possible.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the efforts of a community
charity in my district.
Since
its inception in 2013, the Power to Hope charity has raised funds in support of
cancer-related programs and events across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Over the
past five years, Power to Hope's success has resulted in excess of $250,000
being donated to programs like Young Adult Cancer Canada's Shave for the Brave
campaign and the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy's Cancer Care Foundation.
This
past weekend, volunteers with Power to Hope organized Shawn's Journey in
recognition of Shawn Avery, an 18-year employee of the Terra Nova Golf Resort
who walked most days between his home in Bunyan's Cove and Port Blandford.
Initially diagnosed in 2004 with a cancerous tumour, Shawn carried on for 10
years until on Christmas Day in 2016 he succumbed to the deadly illness. Shawn
was 48.
Shawn
was well respected, he had a remarkable memory for hockey stats and birthdays
and he was best described as everybody's friend.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing Shawn's legacy and the Power to Hope
Charity for their commitment to fighting cancer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize May as Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.
Cystic
fibrosis is the most common fatal genetic disease affecting Canadian children
and young adults. There are currently more than 4,200 Canadians living with this
devastating disease, including 85 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Cystic
fibrosis occurs when a child inherits two abnormal genes, one from each parent.
Approximately one in 25 Canadians carry an abnormal version of the gene
responsible for the disease.
Cystic
Fibrosis Canada is committed to finding a cure. It has invested $244 million in
funding research, innovation and clinical care, making it an international
leader in the cause. As a result, Canadians with cystic fibrosis have one of the
highest median survival rates in the world.
Cystic
Fibrosis Canada is organizing activities and events this month to raise
awareness and funds to support research, care and advocacy initiatives. Cystic
Fibrosis Canada is committed to ensuring that those living with this disease
have access to the treatments and medications they need to live longer and
healthier lives.
I ask my
colleagues in this hon. House to join me and support the Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians living with this disease by learning more about cystic fibrosis and
raising awareness in your community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We join with government in
recognizing May as Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.
In doing
so, we also recognize the tremendous work done by Cystic Fibrosis Canada and its
many members and volunteers. Through their great work and a huge investment of
nearly quarter of a billion dollars, much research, innovation and clinical care
has been provided to the cause.
Evidence
clearly shows the positive impact of this amazing work, as Canadians living with
cystic fibrosis have one of the highest median survival rates in the world.
I
encourage all Members of this House to help raise awareness around this disease
and support the cause whenever possible.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. I join the minister in recognizing all those who are living with
cystic fibrosis, along with families and health care providers who work so hard
to ensure their health and well-being. We can all celebrate the improvements in
diagnosis and treatment for CF which allows those living with the disease to
live longer and fuller lives.
It is
important our province keep up with national innovations and diagnosis,
medication and other aspects of disease management so people here have the same
opportunity as those in other provinces.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, today is a
fitting day to continue a well-deserved celebration – a commemoration – of the
life and times of the flying fisherman and farmer of Daniel's Harbour.
With
great regret – to me, to my family, to the Premier and to everyone who knew him
– Stedman Leander Brophy fell into eternal rest on Monday, May 7 after a life of
84 years, a life marked by hard work and by progress.
Born in
King's Cove, Sted Brophy grew up in Port Saunders but settled in Daniel's
Harbour on the Great Northern Peninsula. He was a man of many talents: a
fisherman, a seafarer, a hunter, a logger, a farmer, and at the age of 40, took
to the sky as a pilot.
A
wonderfully rough and gruff character, Sted had as big a heart as were the
incredible dreams that he made come true.
His
reputation for hard work, perseverance and being a charter among characters, was
laid bear some years back in a special
Land and Sea episode called the Flying
Fisherman of Daniel's Harbour where Sted was profiled with precise
consideration of how large this man really was.
The
profile of both the man and his family – all of whom worked the Northern
Peninsula's woods and waters and who created one of the most successful farming
operations in all of Newfoundland and Labrador – was well made.
He was a
man who made things happen. In 1969, he and his wife Effie started the
successful outfitting business which is still in operation today by their sons,
Leander and Nell.
But that
was but one of many pursuits. He was a hugely successful dairy farmer who saw
solutions not problems. When he couldn't access milk processing facilities in
Corner Brook for his dairy operations because he was told the distance was too
great, he established his own plant in Daniel's Harbour. Viking Trail Dairy was
a household name in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years, and today his sons
Les, Leander and Nell are following in their father's footsteps with Brophy's
Dairy Farm Limited, a true success story of Newfoundland and Labrador's
agriculture industry.
Mr.
Speaker, people like Sted Brophy are the backbone on which our province's
agriculture and agrifoods industry is built, and today we honour his role in
growing it.
On
behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of us all, I
offer condolences to his wife of 58 years, Effie; to his devoted children:
Marlene, Leander, Geraldine, Melita, Leslie, Byron and Nell; his 12
grandchildren and five great-grandchildren, and his entire network of family and
friends.
Mr.
Speaker, if ever you're driving up the Great Northern Peninsula and see a small
plane flying in back of Parsons Pond, it just might be Sted flying a load of
hunters and meat back from the camps.
You see,
Mr. Speaker, Sted was never much for a day off.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We join
with the government in remembering Mr. Brophy. In doing so, we also take time to
recognize him as a true pioneer: an entrepreneur, a man of resilience, a
jack-of-all-trades, and if I may say, those are the attributes of a great
farmer.
Mr.
Brophy was an all-around hardworking, determined and successful resident of our
province. I had the privilege of meeting him on several occasions and he was
well-known throughout the agriculture industry. Mr. Brophy was a well-respected
individual who had a tremendous impact on the agriculture industry, particularly
on the Northern Peninsula. He was a remarkable man with an adventurous spirit.
Mr.
Brophy and his family persevered in the face of adversity, and a prime example
of that was in the late '90s. They rose out of the ashes when a barn fire
destroyed their dairy herd and facility. Mr. Brophy and his family rebuilt and
expanded to be one of the province's most productive and modern dairy
operations.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I offer our sincerest condolences to Mr.
Brophy's entire family and his many friends, and to all those whose lives were
touched by this resilient and extraordinary individual.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of 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 offer my condolences
and that of the NDP caucus to the family of Stedman Brophy. He was indeed a
pioneer of the agriculture industry. I remember that
Land and Sea program referred to by
the minister. He has left a wonderful legacy to his children and to the
province. Young people looking at a career in agriculture would do well to
recognize his energy, vision and capacity for hard work.
Today's
industry may look very different from Mr. Brophy's days, but those qualities
will be just as valuable in achieving success, and I wish success to his family.
We all honour the role Stedman Brophy played in building our provincial
agricultural industry and he won't be forgotten easily, I don't think.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
asked on Monday about concerns about the Premier's involvement in the harassment
complaints, the Premier stated: I did not insert myself in the process.
I ask
the Premier: How can members of the public and Members of the House of Assembly
have confidence that the systemic issues of harassment will be dealt with when
the report goes back to you?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Inaudible) about the position and what this process looked like for quite some
time now. It's been very obvious that the Commissioner that is in place to
actually do this work – and it's an individual. I want to just remind people,
again, that this is an individual that was put in place by a resolution of the
House of Assembly, a resolution that the leader of the Opposition and former
leader of the Opposition, including the Third Party, all supported, saying that
this individual had the wherewithal, had the experience, the expertise to carry
out such a review.
Mr.
Speaker, the allegation about my inserting myself into this is completely wrong,
and I said this on Monday. What happened was I met with the individuals that
were making allegations. There were a number of options that were available to
those individuals. The decided option that was taken by all parties involved was
for me to ask for the Commissioner to step in for a review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On April
27 the Premier stated: I've engaged the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
I ask
the Premier: Do you expect to have conversations with the Commissioner during
the investigation? Will the Premier remove himself from this process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, one of the
things with the Commissioner, he has the power to come in and actually speak to
any MHA in this House of Assembly. That's the authority that he has and the
jurisdiction that he has. He also has the authority to go out and get
independent expert advice if he needs that as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I can guarantee you, no way will I be inserting myself proactively. If
the review Commissioner invites me and asks me to come in, subpoenas me to come
in, well then I have no other choice – no different than the leader of the
Opposition, I would say, or any other Member of this House of Assembly.
Let's
not forget that the allegations – there were three options that would have been
included, Mr. Speaker. The MHAs that would have made allegations, these options
are available to them to use whatever process they think works best for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If my
colleague from Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune filed a code of conduct complaint
against another Member with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, the
report will come back to the House for disclosure.
Will the
reports on the complaints the Premier filed on behalf of the caucus colleagues
be coming back to the House for disclosure?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
I said many times now publicly – and I'm sure the leader of the
Opposition would have been aware of this – is that any information that would be
included in any report that would come back to me, it is my intention to get
that stuff out there publicly. But we have to – those that would make the
allegations, they would need to be involved.
I think
that's fair that whatever public information that would go out there, number
one, would have to be done in consultation with those that are submitting the
allegations under this review process. I will say, Mr. Speaker, once again, that
it would be my view that as much information that could be made public, that is
what I intend to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
legislation does not require a report to the Premier to be tabled in the House.
Such a report will not be given to the Speaker, not to be given to the
Management Commission, not to be given to this House, but only given the
Premier, the complainant and the accused.
Where
you noted, yes, what guarantee do we have that these reports and any
recommendations for penalties will be tabled here in the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I do
remind the hon. Member that matters dealing with this process that we're dealing
with, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, is clearly the preview of the
Legislature and would be dealt with through the Management Commission, so just a
warning.
Premier,
if you chose to comment, please.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I just reiterate and remind people the decisions that were made by those
who were submitting allegations. Mr. Speaker, at any time I would imagine if
people wanted to switch the process and go back to the report going to the House
of Assembly, that could happen as well.
Mr.
Speaker, under no circumstances did I insert myself into this process. This came
as a result of discussions that were had. All options were considered. Even to
the communication that went out public.
I will
guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, we want to clean up this House of Assembly and for
anyone sitting in the Opposition or anyone in this House of Assembly to think
that the Opposition Party has not dealt with this, that isn't factual. That
would not be true. They have had to deal with this. We still have people sitting
in the Opposition caucus today that did something that were inappropriate
outside this House of Assembly and the leader of the Opposition (inaudible) –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the legislation
sets out tough penalties, from a reprimand right up to declaring a Member's seat
vacant; but under the legislation, such recommendations shall not take effect
unless the report comes to the House rather than to the Premier.
Why did
the Premier take the one route that may not lead to penalties?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is
my intention to make everything that would be made available to me, to make that
public. We have to consider those that have made the allegations. That is the
commitment that I've made.
I would
imagine the leader of the Opposition would do something similar. I'd like for
the leader of the Opposition to give his view; maybe he should ask his own
leader because they refused to take and listen to the concerns of the code of
conduct of their own Members and still sits in their own caucus.
Mr.
Speaker, there are really some people twisting some words around. Let me be very
clear, based on when the review comes back to me, it would have been my
intention to get as much information out there publicly as possible. I think
what's fundamental in all of this is that every single Member of this House of
Assembly has a role to play and I think a better code of conduct is required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister has said that the issues around clinical trials, those particularly
pertaining to childhood cancers, are resolved and approved.
Minister, what were these issues that they experienced? Are they in line with
those issues that many other Newfoundland and Labrador researchers have
experienced and raised directly to the minister on multiple occasions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Health Research Ethics Authority and the board that's constituted underneath it
is an arm's-length body from the Department of Health and from government. I
have no insight into what the nature of those issues may have been.
All I
have is I have been informed by the Health Research Ethics Authority that these
issues have been resolved. There is no challenge now for children in this
province to gain access to the latest clinical research and trials if their
cases warrant it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sequence
Bio also released a letter from 25-year veteran researcher and family doctor
Dennis O'Keefe who stated: “If you speak to most clinical trial sponsors they
will tell you that they are not bringing any new clinical trials to this
province because the Health Ethics Research Board are impossible to deal with.”
Minister, will you stop discounting the many credible voices that clearly see
major issues with the ethics board and take swift action to rectify it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I can do
little better than reiterate what I've said in the House for the last two days
and to the media. There has been an allegation, a complaint made about the
process that the Health Research Ethics Authority and its board are following
with regard to applications. I have undertaken, along with my staff, to look at
that and find out if those complaints are actually substantiated. If they are, I
will look to see what options I have, Mr. Speaker.
I, along
with the Health Research Ethics Authority, am here to protect the people of this
province and work in their best interest and I will continue to do so.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Dr.
O'Keefe went on to say that the board's “lack of respect and consideration for
the people and patients of this province is shameful.”
Are
these latest complaints, which line up with previous criticisms made by Sequence
Bio, enough to get the minister to immediately step in? This has been going on
for months, time for action to be taken.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the
process that the Member opposite is referring to is actually set in place, prior
to 2011, by his colleagues. It was done in response to concerns about helicopter
genomics and unethical practices that exposed the people of this province to, if
not risk, then certainly research for no benefit to them.
The
Health Research Ethics Authority has themselves identified challenges and has
constituted an internal review. I am looking at the substance of the allegations
to see what merit they may have. If they have merit, we will take action, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the evidence dictates that the board is not working in the best
interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly around health care.
You are the minister responsible.
Chief
science officer, Michael Phillips, with many years of experience working with
other boards in Canada and around the world stated: “My experience since I have
been in Newfoundland and Labrador has been that the HREB here is out of sync
with the rest of the country and they aren't working with the researchers in a
collaborative fashion. Honestly, right now, I think that the current HREB in
this province is broken.”
I ask
the minister: Can these health professionals and researchers with years of
experience all be wrong?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I
have received allegations and a complaint and I will look into their merit. If
there is an issue, we will deal with it.
What I
would point out is that letters such as the gentleman opposite alluded to are
actually not uncommon, unfortunately, in every health research ethics authority
across the country. There is no health research ethics authority that is popular
with researchers; it is the nature of a regulator.
Once
again, I will look at the process and the allegations that have been made. If
there is substance to them, we will act, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We,
along with countless others, have pleaded for months with the minister to
address these serious issues, but to no avail. I now call upon the Premier to
take a leadership role in this matter and see that full attention is given to
resolving this long-standing issue which has millions of research dollars held
up, but, more importantly, denying potential life-saving treatment.
Will you
act, Mr. Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We spent
three years dealing with health outcomes based on what's been left with
situations; things like the replacement of the Waterford, long-term care, the
replacement of the hospital in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, things that this, the
leader of the Opposition is now referring to is improving health care in our
province. I will guarantee you this minister and this government are taking
proactive measures to deal with that.
All I
need to go back to is the work that's being done on mental health and addictions
in this province, Mr. Speaker. I will guarantee you that this minister here
takes the health concerns of this population and Newfoundland and Labrador very
seriously. The options and the allegations, the claims that you're making, based
on a process that you had put in place, this minister will deal with it and
explore what options they have available to deliver great health care to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody
is disputing that we don't have great people working in health care doing great
work. What we're saying here is we're losing out on clinical research that could
save lives because of inaction by the minister and because there's a broken
process here with the ethics board.
I ask
the Premier, step in and fix it. You're at the helm. Do that, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
I ask the minister: Why the sudden push to enforce the 1.6 busing rule while
it's currently under review? Can we assume the review has been completed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to answer the question. The policy has not changed. Allow me to repeat
that, the policy has not changed. Courtesy busing is still available.
What is
happening here today is the English School District is applying consistency
across the board, across the province on the 1.6 rule.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
understanding from the previous minister was that the 1.6 busing rule would be
under review. So while under review, why are you automatically making this a big
issue?
We are
still asking: Is it under review? If it is, has it been completed? If it isn't,
then, obviously, this is going to be the standard and we need to deal with the
situation around safety and people travelling on our roads.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
again repeat. The policy remains the same as it has been since some time in the
1970s, Mr. Speaker. There is now going to be consistency applied across the
province by the English School District. Courtesy busing is still available.
I will
also say, Mr. Speaker, the 1.6 distance rule is pretty consistent across the
country. I can count probably at least eight provinces or seven provinces that
have the 1.6 rule, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
thousands of parents who've weighted in, the multitude of municipalities, the
number of agencies who have talked about safety here, who've lobbied government
to do a review on this, obviously, this has gone on deaf ears.
I ask
the minister: Will she look at lobbying the Minister of Education to do a full
review on the 1.6 kilometre busing?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I am very confident that the Minister of Education listens very
well to what is happening in our province, listens very well to those who are
utilizing the system: the parents, the students and stakeholders involved in
this. I am very confident he would do that.
Unlike,
I would say, the Members opposite who did not do anything under their watch on
this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in debate, the Minister of Natural Resources said that she
was supportive of Fortis, and that she does not have a problem with Fortis
owning transmission lines.
I ask
the minister: Has Fortis asked for or put in a proposal to purchase assets for
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
say that the Member opposite and the Members opposite do not have a problem with
Fortis; I would say that, Mr. Speaker. Fortis has been around in this province
through Newfoundland Power for almost as long as we've had an electrical system,
Mr. Speaker.
They
currently own 63 per cent of all transmission and distribution lines in this
province, Mr. Speaker. So, of course, we wouldn't have a problem with Fortis.
It's a great company. It's an absolutely great company, listed on the New York
Stock Exchange, doing very good things, Mr. Speaker.
No, I am
not in receipt of anything from Fortis, at all, to increase the amount of
transmission distribution lines. Of course, that is, that we don't have anything
at this point in time. My point has been that this is a great company and that
they currently own an awful lot of the transmission lines in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
current CEO of Nalcor owns up to 5 per cent of the shares of Fortis,
representing millions of dollars.
I ask
the minister: Has Mr. Marshall told you that he has had any conversations
regarding the sale of transmission lines with Fortis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
hearken back to the Conflict of Interest
Act, which requires that anybody holding 10 per cent of a public company
must disclose that. I will say that in the contract for the CEO of Nalcor, it's
actually at 5 per cent levels.
Mr.
Marshall has been reviewed under the conflict of interest legislation and is not
in conflict of interest. In fact, I went so far as to write him a letter – and I
have a copy of it here, if the Member does not remember it I'll be happy to
table it – back in November of 2016, saying there may be a perceived conflict so
you must remove yourself from any conversations dealing with Fortis.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I read
the letter. The previous CEO it was explicit that they could not hold any shares
in Fortis, that individual or any family member. This CEO holds 5 per cent.
In the
letter she refers – the conflict of interest – he needs to advise her if he
thinks at any point in time he's in a conflict – he's in a conversation that
might be in conflict. How does that make any sense, Mr. Speaker?
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister, does she support the sale of the Labrador-Island
link and transmission structure to Fortis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm a little
confused by the question.
The
Members opposite actually made a deal with Emera, a Nova Scotia company, to do
just that. A Nova Scotia company, Emera, actually owns –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
– a piece of the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I will
not tolerate interruptions of the identified speaker; final warning.
Minister.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
little confusing as to they were okay with Emera but they're not okay with
anyone else.
Mr.
Speaker, we have not had any discussions with Fortis. There is nothing on the
table to buy the Labrador-Island link. The Labrador-Island link was very
expensive to build, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that it's not, at this point
in time, in any discussion or otherwise, but I can say I'm confused by the
question considering he brought in Emera himself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'd advise our Minister of
Natural Resources, Emera is related to the link between the Newfoundland and
Labrador and Nova Scotia. I said Labrador. It's quite different. She didn't get
that part, I guess.
Mr.
Speaker, private corporation taxes are passed on to consumers through their
electricity rates. With a Crown corporation those taxes are not required to be
paid so it's not passed on to the consumer.
Is the
minister okay with this approach with the sale of assets and could possibly be
added to the electricity rates?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
quite sure of where the Member is going with this question. As I've said, there
is no conversation, at this point in time, about the additional sale or the sale
of any transmission lines or distribution lines.
I will
remind the people of this province that 63 per cent of all transmission and
distribution lines is currently owned by Fortis. I will say, that Emera has a
big share, of course, in this province through their deal with Nalcor and with
the former administration because of the Muskrat Falls, but I guess that's okay
because Frank Coleman is on the board of Emera. Is that the whole basis of this
information?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Conference Board of Canada's annual report card on innovation gave this province
a grade of D minus.
After
being in office for three years I ask the minister: Why did our province score
so low?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
very exciting things that are happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador when
it comes to innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
We've been resetting the
innovation agenda. We have a tech sector work plan that's happened. We've
created InnovateNL and just this morning, as part of the NATI technology summit,
because it's Innovation Week happening, we announced $650,000 to support the
Genesis Centre, an incubator to start from seed to the whole lifecycle to get
businesses to grow and scale up. We're supporting 20 companies in the tech
sector each year for the next two years. We're doing a significant amount of
work to grow the tech sector.
It is
4,000 jobs, $1.6 billion and growing. It is one of our greatest opportunities in
Newfoundland and Labrador and we are excelling in innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, the province, just a few short years ago, was graded at B and under
a Liberal government we've fallen to a D-minus grade. Your approach isn't
working.
Newfoundland and Labrador was ranked 22nd among 26 provinces and peer countries.
Our province is lagging behind when it comes to innovation.
Minister, how do you intend to turn this poor rating around?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at any report, you have to look at the indicators and what is being
accessed. When it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador, based on that report in
Canada, we rank in sixth place of all the provinces based on those assessments.
Newfoundland and Labrador ranks extremely high for entrepreneurial spirit, new
start-ups and those tech companies because we're creating those opportunities.
We're creating that climate.
When you
have to look at the right level of investment as to there are gaps that's
happened when it comes to IP and making sure that we have the right IP policy at
Memorial University, something that has been raised time and time again by the
previous administration. They never addressed it. They never dealt with the
problems that many tech companies and start-ups want to see in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We've
created a plan, our Premier through the Cabinet Committee on Jobs established a
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
province performed poorly on research and development as well.
Minister, is this the result of your dismantling of the Research & Development
Corporation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the Research & Development Corporation was changed because the
business community and those innovators have said that they need better
approach. What they had implemented – the Research & Development Corporation of
2009 created by the former administration – did not work for the best benefit of
the people.
If you
look at innovation that's happening, and other provinces that have the
standalone innovation corporation, like Saskatchewan, they rank lower than us in
this report.
When it
comes to InnovateNL, we've got innovation leaders. We've got a connectivity with
business financing from start-up to scale-up to connecting, and we have not cut
any funding when it comes to programming that is available. Now, somebody can go
from pre-commercial to commercial to international without having to go to
multiple entities. We've reduced red tape. We're doing things better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Our province has also scored low on venture capital. Since the Liberals have
taken office, all economic indicators for this province are getting worse.
When
will the minister admit that the high taxes and fees in place for the last two
years, including the levy, poor regulatory decisions and poor oversight, is
sending money outside of this province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, we've seen rapid
investment in growth in many companies. If you look at the bright forecast for
the St. John's economy, the Conference Board of Canada has highlighted that and
the growth from GDP. I don't know where the Member opposite is, but she's
completely absent when it comes to anything that's going on through Innovation
Week, the business community events and the activities.
The
Premier made a major announcement in a company, Quorum, that had four employees
that were based in Alberta that decided they wanted to come to Newfoundland and
Labrador. Because technology companies can be borderless, they decided to set up
operations here in the province. They've grown since 2006 to 89 employees and
they're going to continue to grow.
Good
things are happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Venture capital, there
are opportunities, there are two funds that are available and more foreseen and
–
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
afternoon's government private Member's motion calls for a vague process that
respects the rights of unionized and non-unionized employees.
I ask
the Premier: Does he mean his government supports non-unionized employees
replacing unionized workers who are on strike? Is he saying he supports using
scab labour during strikes or lockouts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure – I'm
absolutely certain – that the hon. Member will want to stand and celebrate and
congratulate the Member for Labrador West for bringing forward this private
Member's motion so that this House can engage in a discussion about the
importance of labour relations legislation and regulations, about what's working
and about what we need to investigate further.
To come
to a reasoned conclusion that a broad-based consultation that includes not only
those who are active in the labour community, but those employers, those with
expertise, experts in the field of labour relations can come forward and examine
our system and bring us good, solid expert advice. That's what the Member for
Lab West has done and we should all applaud that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, in his vague
private Member's motion he asked the House to identify measures that would
support the collective bargaining process, thereby avoiding prolonged work
stoppages. We've asked questions about that numerous times.
I ask
the Premier: Will he introduce anti-replacement legislation to protect the
rights for fair bargaining for our workers? I say to the Premier that is the
measure that is needed.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, nobody should be
afraid of or unwelcoming to the voices and the opinions, not only of the labour
community because that's what we will receive – if the House assents to this
important private Member's resolution, we will ask the labour community to bring
forward their points of view.
The hon.
Member says that the labour community's points of view are vague and unfounded.
I disagree. This is an opportunity for us to hear, to be able to receive
consultation and to formulate what that consultation means, and that will
include the labour community.
I
appreciate, to a certain degree, the hon. Member does not think that's
worthwhile. The Member for Labrador West and this side of the House does.
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'd like
to point out to the minister that my colleague talked about the private Member's
motion as being vague.
Mr.
Speaker, D-J Composites workers are heading into their 17th month of being
locked out. The ICO strike now heads into its seventh week and who knows where
that's going.
I ask
the Premier: Why are we debating a private Member's motion later today when a
lockout has always been completely within his power to solve, by acting on the
recommendation of the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry to allow for binding
arbitration to settle disputes where collective bargaining has truly failed, and
which is a recommendation that the labour movement agreed with?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, conciliation officers are at work, working with both sides, both
the collective bargaining units and the employers in both circumstances
referenced.
I will
point out to the hon. Member, as I'm sure she's well aware, that in the
situation with IOC, for example, the conciliation officer was able to create a
bridge between both sides, a meeting was held and there was a tentative
agreement. Unfortunately, the tentative agreement could not be ratified by the
membership, but the conciliation efforts continue to this day.
We have
a very, very robust labour relations environment regulatory system in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but as is the case pointed out by the hon. Member for
Lab West, we can always improve that, that's the value of (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order,
please!
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.
This
afternoon's private Member's motion calls for measures which respect the rights
of unionized workers. D-J Composites in Gander has locked out their employees
for 17 months. If that isn't bad faith, what is?
I ask
the Premier: What is the Premier's answer to companies who take away all power
from the workers by locking them out? What is your response to them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, it's always extremely difficult, frustrating, anxious moments for
both employees and employers whenever there's a labour dispute.
We
appreciate that in the situation with D-J Composites, it has been a long strike.
There has been a lockout that has been in place. Conciliation officers are in
place to assist to try to bridge the lockout that is currently underway. We'll
continue on with those efforts.
In the
meantime, Mr. Speaker, what's important that preoccupies this House is that we
are able and we're prepared to look at our labour relations regulations and
environment to be able to ensure that it best meets the needs of the 21st
century labour environment for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions has ended.
I would
like to bring to the Member's attention, please, if I may. Further to a
Ministerial Statement, Mr. John Bennett, from the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
foundation, is in our public gallery.
I'd like
to welcome you, Sir.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Court Security Act, 2010, Bill 16.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
opioid addictions is a very serious problem affecting many individuals and
families in our province, and the Bell Island area is no exception; and
WHEREAS
the effects of these problems have implications that negatively impact many
people, old and young; and
WHEREAS
support and treatment programs have been proven to break the cycle of addiction
and have helped many into recovery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to establish a Suboxone-methadone treatment plan
for Bell Island, which would include a drug addiction counsellor at the hospital
and a drug awareness program in the local schools.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is my sixth time presenting this and every time there's noted,
when the petitions come in from residents, nearly 50 names on each one of these.
Every day it keeps accumulating, all the different names of people who realize
the impact that opioid and addictions issues have on our society and
individuals. They continue to want to lobby to have a solution put in play. In
this case, they're actually even recommending. They've done some of their own
research; they've got some of the collaborative approaches with health
professionals and that in play.
We have
an infrastructure on Bell Island, a very effective, very efficient hospital.
What we lack is a minor part of the financial investment, but a major part in
being able to provide a proper service, and that's the counselling services to
provide a methadone or Suboxone clinic so that those who are grappling with
opioid addictions and other types of addictions can get the services that they
need so that they can become more productive.
What
we're asking here is a serious collaboration between Eastern Health, the
Department of Health and the clinical hospital that we have on Bell Island to
come up with a solution working with the community that makes sense. The
recommendation that's been outlined, all that needs to be done is to find a way
to work the existing assets, do proper training so to be able to provide the
services that are necessary.
We've
all realized – we've debated it in this House – every agency out there who works
in this field will talk about the fact that there are easy solutions, but there
has to be somebody who will step up to the plate and do it. In this case we have
an asset that's ready; we just need the will and the direction. I think the
Department of Health can take that direction and say, you know what, there are
certain areas here we can offer this, there are certain pilots we can put in
play. There are already programs that we know are being provided and can work.
We don't
have to invest a lot of money in the bricks and mortar; we have that available
to go. Why don't we take that approach and direct someone to do it? I'm asking
the minister to step in here, ask and direct the department and Eastern Health
to work with the hospital and the agencies over there to try and put these
services in place.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll get a chance to speak to this again.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I want to date
back to Question Period, if I could, under – I'll quote section 49.
When the
Premier spoke he referenced a Member on this side in regard to an incident of
possible harassment that may have occurred and was spoken of outside of this
Chamber. It's my understanding that Member has been advised by you that tapes
were reviewed, interviews were done and there was no indication of anything to
be done any further.
On that
basis, I ask that you consider that the Premier withdraw those comments. It's to
our understanding nothing has come of that and would be offensive to the sitting
Member.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I
could respond to the point of order, what I would suggest is that there are at
least seven witnesses to the incident referred to by the Premier. Again, we can
continue on down that route.
The
second part is I don't think the Premier actually referenced any Member.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I could speak without
being heckled during a point of order by the Member opposite, that would be much
appreciated. If he wishes to contribute to the point of order, I welcome the
commentary from the Member opposite.
What I
would suggest is there are seven witnesses to this episode that was referenced
by the Premier today. Secondly, the Premier did not actually reference a single
Member on the other side.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe what I'd like to do
is to take this under advisement because there are some issues here around point
of privilege and point of order. I'd ask all Members that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Some order, please!
I will
take the point of order under advisement and I'll report back to the House as
soon as I can.
Thank
you.
I would
ask the Member for Cape St. Francis for your petition, please.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm sorry we got the Minister
of Justice so upset.
MR. SPEAKER:
Your petition, please.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The petition of the
undersigned: school age children are walking to school in areas where there are
no sidewalks, no traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks and putting
the safety of children at risk. Therefore, the petitioners call upon government.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure safety of all children by removing the 1.6
busing policy where safety is an ongoing concern.
Mr.
Speaker, I brought this petition to the House now several times. It's a huge
issue in my area. I heard the Acting Minister of Education today, the Minister
of Natural Resources, talk about 1.6 and trying to get consistency and stuff
like that, but I want to explain to the minister that there are a lot of areas
in our province where safety should come foremost with regard to anything.
When it
comes to our children, safety should be put forth no matter what. I live in an
area where there's a lot of traffic. My school is in Torbay, there was a traffic
count done showing that there are 17,000 cars a day that travel along this road.
These roads have no sidewalks. There is no street lighting there to show there's
a crosswalk there, and it's a huge issue.
While
the minister today talked a little bit about courtesy busing, it's a very
important part of mine, too. I'm talking about children in grade kindergarten to
grade four. We really have to consider what we're doing here and the
consequences that could happen with small children on these roads.
During
this time of year it's not as bad, but in the winter months, Mr. Speaker, snow
clearing is not the best. We're putting people out on dirt, gravel roads where
ice buildup is a huge problem and safety is the foremost of my concerns. I'm
really concerned about the safety of our children. They'll go back and say, you
didn't do it or we didn't do it; somebody do it. It has to be done because
something is going to happen. This is about the safety of our children.
Where
there are no sidewalks and where there's a lot of high traffic volume, we should
have a look at it. I'm not asking to blame anybody or we were going to do it,
you were going to do it. I'm asking for it to be looked at. Where there's an
area where somebody could be seriously hurt or killed, please look at those
areas.
It's
about the safety of our children, and that's the reason why I'll continue to
present this petition.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to respond to the petition as Acting Minister of Education today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh, sorry.
MS. COADY:
I did rise in the House today and talk about the fact that there has been no
policy change. I want to make sure people understand that there has been no
policy change. The fact is courtesy seating will continue. The school board is
now applying consistency.
I do
respect the Member opposite for bringing forward the concerns. I think,
obviously, the minister responsible will listen to those concerns, and it has
been said. As has been indicated in the past, we are open to hearing what needs
to be done.
I will
say that providing a safe and reliable school transportation system always is
foremost in the mind of this government. The budget of 2018 invested almost $59
million in school transportation system.
We look
at our colleagues across the country, what's happening across the country. We
listen to petitions, as was just presented, but we also have to be mindful that
$59 million is invested in our busing transportation system. We do have to
provide a safe, reliable school transportation system for this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you for the response;
my apologies.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Labrador West to introduce the resolution standing in his
name, Motion 3.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port:
BE IT RESOLVED
that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to begin consultations with unions and employers to identify measures
that would support the collective bargaining process thereby avoiding prolonged
work stoppages while respecting the rights of both the unionized and
non-unionized employees such that the long-term sustainability of various
industries is preserved to the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. LETTO: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it's a pleasure for me to rise and present this
private Member's resolution today. I guess I would be remiss if I did not start
by having a few words about the situation that has arisen in Labrador West today
and has been.
We're actually now at the beginning of the eighth week, as
opposed to the seventh that was mentioned by a Member of the Third Party.
Yesterday marked the beginning of the eighth week of this work stoppage.
As a resident of Labrador West and an employee of the Iron
Ore Company for thirty years, I have experienced many of these work stoppages in
the past. I will say today, uncategorically – I
guess maybe because of the
position I find myself in today – that this one is like no other. There are a
number of reasons for that, and of course I won't get into the reasons.
When we
talk about work stoppages, we have the unionized people who are on strike,
serving on the picket lines – and as I've said in this House so many times, I
respect the right of the workers and I respect certainly the mandate that the
workers have given the negotiating team to strike. On the other hand, Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of friends and neighbours, and friends of neighbours of
those who are on strike, who are non-unionized members of this company that find
themselves having to cross picket lines, and it's very stressful for them. It's
very uncomfortable. It's not something they prefer to do; nevertheless, we have
to respect their positions as well and their rights and the right of the company
to use their non-unionized staff to access the workplace and do what needs to be
done.
We've
all heard the accusations and we've all heard the reports of replacement workers
being on site. I've been working very closely with both the union president and
the president of IOC on these matters. I've been at it since day one, actually,
Mr. Speaker. The union membership has shared some incidents with me that I've
forwarded to the president of IOC for confirmation or denial. So that dialogue
continues to exist there.
Mr.
Speaker, one thing we have to respect in all of this is the right of collective
bargaining. I can go through the process but I don't think I need to do that.
That's why we in this House, on this side of the House, I'm sure everybody who's
involved in this would prefer to see this matter resolved by the collective
bargaining process. That's why we have that collective bargaining process in
place, is to be able to settle situations, whether it's a lockout, whether it's
a strike, but in order for that collective bargaining process to succeed we need
people talking. We need both sides talking to each other; not to whomever, but
they need to talk to each other.
That's
what we as a government – myself and the Premier met with the president of the
union. I've talked to the president of IOC and expressed that concern to them
that this needs to be done through the collective bargaining process.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, we've heard in Question Period that Members of the Third Party feel
that the PMR is too vague. Well, I consider the PMR to be wide open because what
the PMR does state, Mr. Speaker, is that we, as a government, begin the
consultations with both labour and employer, labour and industry, to identify
measures.
Some of
these measures, I'm sure in our consultations with the labour movement, will
include anti-replacement worker legislation or binding arbitration legislation.
I'm sure these issues will be raised. When the time comes for that report to
come back to us, it's a decision that we'll have to make, as the House of
Assembly, what we accept as the right way to go.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to keep in mind that we do require balance. It's a balance.
When you look at some of the reports that come out, Mr. Speaker, and this one in
particular, it says that: “Labour relations laws cover different aspects of
labour relations including: the process through which unions gain and lose the
right to represent workers in collective bargaining; the rules that either allow
or prohibit making union membership and/or union dues a condition of employment
….”
It goes
on to state, Mr. Speaker, that “Labour relations laws increase labour market
flexibility when they balance the interests of workers, union representatives,
and employers. However, when such laws favours one group over another, prevent
innovation, or prescribed outcomes rather than foster negotiation ….”
In
anything we do, Mr. Speaker, we have – that's what it's all about, it's finding
that balance. There may be a time when we will need that legislation in place,
but, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do in all this is to respect the right of the
union worker.
What I
see and what I – I've been on the picket line in Labrador West and we've
mentioned the D-J Composites situation in Gander, they've been locked out now
for 18 months. That is what we've got to avoid, Mr. Speaker, are these
situations. It's the eight-week-long strikes, six-month-long strikes, the
lockouts, we have to avoid that. I feel, at this point, that we need – the time
has come to take a very serious look at our labour laws in this province.
That
needs to be done in consultation with unions, with the Federation of Labour, the
Board of Trades, the Employers' Council, whomever, and industry. I think we need
to take a balanced approach to it. I'm sure that as we go through this
consultation process that all aspects of collective bargaining, as well as
labour laws, will come into play.
That is
why, Mr. Speaker, we've worded this PMR the way it is worded. It's because we
need to hear from all sides. We need to hear from all aspects of the labour
movement, and I'm sure we will, and rightly so. I think the time has come that
we really need to sit down and take a serious look at where we're going as a
province with labour laws.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to be careful, too, that we don't set up a regime whereby
industry is deterred from setting up shop in this province, because it's
important that we have the industry and we have the employers because without
the employers, we have no employees, whether they're unionized or non-unionized.
We have to make sure that we create an environment where industry is welcome
there, we're open for business, where businesses are welcome there.
There's
more to this than talking about just the IOCs and the D-J Composites of the
world. This PMR covers all aspects of the labour movement, all aspects of
business and industry. It just so happens that the situation that I find myself
in in Labrador West, that we find ourselves in, in Labrador West, has raised the
issue again, has brought it to the forefront when we get accusations of
companies using replacement workers.
Mr.
Speaker, that does nothing for the community. I can guarantee you, because I'm
experiencing it. It does nothing because we have families against families. We
have aunts against uncles. We have friends against friends. Some are working
inside the gate and some are on strike. They all have a job to do. When you get
accusations of replacement workers, it certainly raises the stress level within
the community. It does nothing because we have to remember as well, Mr. Speaker,
that when we have a large corporation – and I use Labrador West again, because
IOC is the only operating mine there. With the IOC shut down, there is no big
business as such. There's no big industry.
We have
to remember that when a big industry shuts down, everybody in the community is
affected. Not only the people who work at IOC, but it's also the supply
industry. It's the wives, the children, schools, hospitals, everybody is
negatively impacted by such a work stoppage. That's what we're finding in
Labrador West right now, and I'm sure that there are aspects of Gander that are
experiencing the same thing as my hon. colleague would say.
So, Mr.
Speaker, what we have to do, I think, and I feel the time has come where we need
to sit down with both sides and look at legislation that we have in place. We
have to respect the collective bargaining process that we now have in place and,
again, at this point, we hope – and I'm confident that it will – that
once both sides get back together that we can settle this dispute through the
collective bargaining process.
Mr. Speaker, what I'm seeing happening to my community, to
Labrador West, is very troubling. I find myself right in the middle of it
because we have the union, as I said, on the outside. We have the workers on the
inside, the non-unionized workforce of ICO, they have to go work – because I've
been on both sides of it. I've been on both sides of that picket line, so I know
what they're going through. Going through that picket like, whether you're on
the outside looking in, or on the inside of that bus looking out, it's very,
very stressful and it's something that we need to avoid.
Now, the Third Party referred to the Voisey's Bay situation
some years ago when we had an 18-month strike, I think, where they did bring in
replacement workers. That was wrong, Mr. Speaker. I mean, I don't agree with
replacement workers. I state that categorically, I don't. There's something
different about it, though, when that mine is in a remote location and the
workers are, say, in a town. You don't have that immediate connection and
immediate contact with one versus the other. Voisey's Bay did that for a quite a
time until commissioners got involved and there was an inquiry done on the whole
thing.
One of
the recommendations coming out of that – and I agree with the Third Party – was
to have anti-replacement worker legislation. I don't use the word anti-scab
because I just don't like it, so I'm going to use replacement.
Anyway,
when you got it happening within, or at least the accusations and allegations
that it's happening – and some of the allegations, by the way, have been proven
wrong. Nevertheless, whether it's happening or it's not, the mere fact that the
perception is there that it's happening is enough to cause a terrible, terrible
situation within the community.
So what
I'd like to see, Mr. Speaker, and I'll have a chance to speak again – and I look
forward to the debate that's going occur this evening because I think it's a
very healthy debate, it's one that's required and it's one that we need to do. I
look forward to the debate from both sides of the House and what actually is
being said and where we actually go with this. But I feel that we need to leave
this wide open for unions and industry to come back to us and tell us what's
required to have a balanced approach to good, strong collective bargaining and
good labour relations in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak on this private Member's motion
today on a very important issue. This issue is very important. The PMR, there's
no one here in this House I don't think will be against this. It's something
probably needs more substance to it. But in any event, it's a very important
issue. It's a serious issue and it's never good when you see a prolonged labour
dispute like this and having such an effect on a company town like Lab West is.
I mean,
the mine is such an integral part of that community. We, on this side, do
certainly wish and encourage government and for this to come to a peaceful end
and everything get back to normal. It's very important to the province and to
the local economy.
Mr.
Speaker, I sympathize with the Member for Lab West. No region's more heavily
reliant on a single employer than the people of his district are reliant on IOC.
Lab West is one of the shining lights of the mining industry, not just
nationally but globally. For decades, the workers at IOC have invested their
energy and skill to making this company one of the best iron ore producers in
the world. The company has generated huge returns and Lab West has become one of
the most prosperous regions in our province.
From
time to time over the years, collective bargaining has failed and workers have
found themselves on strike. Every time the work stoppage is stressful for
workers, their families and everyone else in the community whose prosperity
depends on the mine. The bills continue to come in, but not the paycheques.
While
the workers walk the picket lines, the union leaders consider their options. In
the corporate headquarters, managers are considering their options. What are the
companies' goals? How much are they willing to bend? What are the workers'
goals? How much are they willing to bend? What are the factors at play? The
goals of the owners (inaudible) the state of the market, the state of the
industry.
All the
while the clock is ticking, the days crossed off the calendar are adding up.
When times are good and money is flowing, Labrador West is an amazing place to
be. But when things grind to a halt, a dark cloud hangs over the entire region.
I don't envy the Member for Lab West. A strike could happen at any time in any
industry affecting any one of our districts, but in your district, with a strike
like this, everything comes to a standstill.
It might
be tempting to take political shots at the Member opposite at a time like this,
but I'm not going to do that. I have too much respect for the men and women and
children of Lab West who are watching this debate and really suffering, out of
concern for themselves and their region. They want solutions. This resolution is
about finding solutions and we plan to support it.
We asked
some very pointed questions this week about the situation at IOC. We asked these
questions because they need to be asked. People in Lab West are asking those
very same questions. In June 2015, just prior to the last election, the leader
who is now Premier stood in front of IOC workers and made a commitment. We know
he made a commitment because of what was said afterwards.
Lawrence
McKay spoke to the gathering after the politicians had spoken, and this is what
he said: Sisters and brothers, I want to make one thing clear. We heard from
some politicians, a lot of politicians, and I want them to understand very
clearly that we are going to be hounding you to do what you just said you were
going to do.
That's
not me speaking; that's the people of Labrador West speaking. When they hear
commitments, they expect commitments to be kept. What commitments was he
referring to? He was referring to a commitment made by the leader who will soon
be premier. He was talking about another premier, but today he's the one who
sits on the eighth floor of Confederation Building.
These
words from his own mouth are directed at the person who sits in the Premier's
chair. Right now, that person is him. The people of Lab West are echoing this
Premier's own words right back at the person who spoke them. Here is what he
said: Why is it taking so long for this to be dealt with? We have processes. We
have legislation that is in place in our province. All we are asking for is that
the processes be respected.
Right
now, what I am seeing is a Premier that has decided to step back when it's time
to step up. He has not done that. We are asking the Premier right now – the
Premier is the one person who can get the company at the table, meet with the
union, get this resolved once and for all so that this community can have a
great successful future. Premier, step up and help be part of the solution.
Those
are the words that the people of Lab West today are echoing back at the Premier.
They promised to hound politicians who make commitments and it is the Premier
who made these commitments, the commitment to step up, the commitment to get
this company at the table, met with the union and get this resolved so the
community can have a great, successful future.
With
this strike now two months old, what is the Premier doing to live up to his
commitment he made to the people of Lab West when he was asking for their
support? They supported him then. Where's the support for them now, now that
they need it? Is this resolution the support this region needs? Let's look at
how this resolution reads because that's all we have before us today, by way of
a government solution to the region's crisis.
The
resolution calls for several things. First, it calls on the government to begin
consultations with unions and employers. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. It's
2018, this government has been in office for three years and the IOC strike has
been ongoing now for eight weeks. Why is this resolution calling for government
to begin consultation with unions and employers? Why have they not already
begun? Why does it take a resolution of the House to get the government to begin
consultations with union and employers?
This
beginning should have happened long before now, without a resolution to trigger
it. The consultation process should be ongoing, constant and an open channel of
communication throughout all sectors and communities with workers and employers
alike. Why hasn't this been happening?
Second,
the resolution calls for these consultations to identity measures that would
support the collective bargaining process. That, too, is surprising. Labour
relations are a long-standing provincial government responsibility. Every
administration takes onto itself the obligation of facilitating and supporting
the collective bargaining process so it occurs as smoothly as possible. That is
essential to a successful, sustainable economy.
The
government administers all sorts of labour relations legislation. The labour
division of government has labour relation responsibilities. At one time, the
labour relations agency was created to facilitate this. There are other offices
and instruments available to government to ensure that the labour relations
climate in the province is as healthy as possible.
In fact,
section 2(d) of the Charter protects the right to associate to achieve
collective goals. It's a fundamental part of our society and the province has a
role to play in ensuring the labour relations climate is healthy and balanced.
Third,
this resolution states that these measures to support the collective bargaining
process should serve to avoid prolonged work stoppages. That should go without
saying, Mr. Speaker. Prolonged work stoppages are not a good thing, not for
workers, not for employers, not for communities, not for any of us. Finding
measures to resolve prolonged work stoppages must be a priority. Finding
measures to avoid prolonged work stoppages must also be a priority.
Fourth,
this resolution states that these measures to support collective bargaining
should protect the rights of both unionized and non-unionized employees. That,
again, is fundamental. Workers have the right to organize unions; they have a
right to choose not to organize unions. The rights of both kinds of workers must
be protected.
Fifth,
the resolution states these measures to support collective bargaining should
preserve the long-term sustainability of various industries to the benefit of
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This is fundamental. Our province relies
on industries to generate jobs for people, income for people and revenue for our
province. Who could disagree with the importance of preserving the long-term
sustainability of our industries and benefitting our people? These are
(inaudible) aspirations.
That is
the sum total of today's resolution from government: Begin consulting with the
unions and employers to identify measures that would support the collective
bargaining process, thereby avoiding prolonged work stoppages while respecting
the rights of both unionized and non-unionized employees such that the long-term
sustainability of various industries is preserved to the benefit of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This all comes back to the word “begin.”
Everything here is what every government ought to be doing all the time. The
people of Lab West expect their government to be engaged in constructive dialog
with workers and companies all the time. In fact, they expect their government
to be proactive, to meet with companies and workers to see the problems coming
before they occur and find ways to avoid problems and work stoppages before they
occur.
Governments have many opportunities to do this; premiers have many opportunities
to do this. Premiers and ministers have opportunities to travel the country and
the world to meet with employers, investors and governments to talk about ways
to bring benefits to our province. They have incredibly talented officials
working in government, Mr. Speaker. Officials who pay close attention to
markets, to emerging opportunities that we should be chasing and to emerging
threats that we need to get out in front of.
Premiers
meet with other premiers and prime ministers, governments and ambassadors,
corporate leaders, wealthy investors, people all over the world. Premiers and
ministers have the responsibility to make the most of these opportunities and
try to bring new investment to Newfoundland and Labrador.
If there
are changes in the ownership or management of major companies that are already
doing business here and, particularly, if there is trouble brewing in the
commodity markets where companies trade, then governments ought to be on top of
those developments. It ought to be setting up meetings to talk about those
challenges and ways to deal with them with the people involved.
The same
way a government should be beating the bushes to attract new industries here, it
ought to be careful to work with industries that have already come here and
nurture those relationships. That doesn't mean closing up to sell our province
short, it means being a responsible partner looking for the best interests of
the people of this province. It means keeping the lines of communication open,
being well-informed in dealing with these enterprises and being a mature partner
in economic development as a steward of the people's resources.
The
government has an enormous power to shape the local landscape through its tax
policies, resource development policies, trade agreements, labour market
agreements and so forth. It is how we use those powers that determine how
successful this province is going to be.
Even
today, many regions of our world are prospering; many regions of our country are
prospering. We need our own province to be prospering and not suffering, but
that requires leadership that understands the challenges, builds relationships
and cultivates opportunities that will bring growth and prosperity to
Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the government's job, Mr. Speaker.
At the
same time, the government needs to cultivate strong relationships with local
communities, workers, unions, councils, small businesses, social enterprises and
so forth. It is not just about workers and companies engaged in collective
bargaining over there out of reach. You don't get to wash your hands of this. An
economy is so much more than workers and companies. There are so many more
factors that comes into play. Tax policy is just one of the factors that
government controls and can have a huge impact on success.
Those
policies cannot be developed down in the basement of the Confederation Building
out of touch with the world; they have to be made in collaboration with people
outside the building. A government cannot make the best decisions unless it is
fully engaged with all sectors of the economy, boots on the ground in every
community in this province.
Eight
weeks after a strike starts is too late to begin to engage workers and employers
on The Way Forward. Eight hours after
a strike starts is too late to begin. The beginning should start the moment you
take government. Open up the channels of communication right from the start and
keep them open. Minimize the surprises; minimize the chances of things breaking
down. Address conflicts before they spin out of control. Find avenues to resolve
disputes before they occur.
One
minister spoke yesterday on solutions in search of problems. He spoke of that as
being a bad thing. Since when is it a bad thing to avoid problems before they
occur? We see a proactive approach as a good thing. An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure. Avoiding a stoppage is a whole lot better than ending it
months down the road. What do we do now that the process has broken down and the
strike is grinding on? The Premier needs to bring the parties together as he
said he would.
The
Premier is the one person who can get this company to the table, meet with the
union and get this resolved once and for all so that this community can have a
great, successful future. Premier, step up and help be part of the solution.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to first congratulate the Member for Labrador West for bringing forward this
private Members' resolution today. In a proactive discussion on the floor of the
House of Assembly we will be discussing today many elements of labour relations,
labour relations regulations and statutes. This is important.
There
has already been some criticism that the private Member's resolution is vague,
that it is not defined, it's not prescriptive, that it's not preconceived, that
all of the measures that Members would like to have in place are not already in
place and scripted within the private Member's resolution. I would suspect, Mr.
Speaker, that had the Member done so, had the Member provided specific
prescription to our labour relations environment in Newfoundland and Labrador,
the opposite would be true, the call would be that there should have been
greater consultation. There should have been openness and a possibility for a
discussion at the opinion of labour experts, the opinion of labour, the opinion
of employers before any final resolution was made.
While
there has already been criticism that has been placed, this criticism is easily
seen to be unjustified. The very people who suggest that the resolution is not
complete would be the very ones who'd be very angry if the resolution were
prescriptive in nature and pre-established or preordained what the outcomes
should be.
Mr.
Speaker, with that as a backdrop, it's important to point out that labour
relations regulation, labour relations law, labour relations decisions are an
evolving legal context. In fact, just recently the Supreme Court of Canada
extended jurisprudence in a case where section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, the Constitution of Canada, was being reviewed by the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Our
Supreme Court justices decided that protection for the freedom of association
and the right to strike are so important that in one of the Supreme Court's
decisions they held that the right to strike is constitutionally protected
because it's such a critical role in the meaningful process of collective
bargaining.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, let me put this in a context of when a Legislature decides to restrict
the right to strike or to lockout its employees through the imposition of a
statutory binding arbitration mechanism. That's really what this is. When you
consider what binding arbitration is we are very open minded to all aspects of
this but it would be to create a statutory provision, statutory restriction on
the right to strike or lockout.
It would
be important to recognize that the labour movement understandably and reasonably
values the right to strike. If a Legislature were suddenly to come forward and
impose a restriction or limitation on the right to strike, vis-à-vis the
creation of a binding arbitration process whereby the right to strike would be
removed and the ultimate decision would be created by arbitrator or a panel,
then of course there is a potential for a challenge of the constitutionality of
that legislation through the Supreme Court based on now existing recent
jurisprudence.
It would
be fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that not everyone would be fully in agreement with
a binding arbitration mechanism. In fact, both parties to a negotiation both
labour and employers, value the right and the necessity of the collective
bargaining process. Surrendering the collective bargaining process to an outside
party is not always met with favour, and understandably so, because the element
of control, the element of participation and for ideas to speak on their own
face becomes surrogate to the decisions of an arbitrator.
It would
be very presumptive of this Legislature to just simply assume there is unanimous
consensus or even near unanimous consensus by either employers or employee
representatives for binding arbitration. We recognize that in difficult
circumstances, in difficult cases, that appetite, that awareness, that
appreciation grows.
Clearly,
D-J Composites, the situation, the lockout at D-J Composites being somewhat of a
protracted strike – lockout, sorry – this is one of those times when you can
clearly see where the frustration level grows and people seek an answer. But to
make the suggestion that the labour movement of Canada is in full favour of
binding arbitration and prepared to surrender the text, the wording, the
conditions of invoking binding arbitration, should be just simply handed to the
Legislature to discuss and decide by themselves, would be ridiculous.
The
Member's motion, the resolution that we have before us today, which has been
suggested is vague and inappropriate because it's not prescriptive and
completely defined so that there's one prescription and one prescription only,
and that prescription is defined exclusively by the Member for Labrador West, I
think the very critics of that notion, of that PMR, would be the critics if it
were prescriptive.
We do
need to reach out to experts and find what the common level of understanding and
information that's available out there. We do need to hear from labour experts
but, as well, employers, before this Legislature makes any final decision and
determination on any draft. That is the responsible thing to do.
Mr.
Speaker, we've done this before. In fact, the former administration did have a
suite of changes to the Labour Relations
Act, some of which, after being invoked and enacted, were revoked. So you
can make a mistake with this. You can err.
When you
consider the importance of strong labour relations to the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador, to each and every one of us and to the security of
our families, this is something that should be done very thoughtfully. It should
not be done recklessly, nor should it be assumed that any one Member from this
side or from that side has a permanent and best solution.
Let me
be clear, this is what has been proposed. The text of the private Member's
resolution that we discuss today, or the debate or the speeches, the information
we convey to each other will likely include elements of what the
Labour Relations Act could include and
what the elements of labour relations collective bargaining should include.
The
resolution on the floor of the House of Assembly today is whether or not there
should be a consultation, whether or not we should ask those experts, whether or
not we should ask members of the labour community and the employer community,
and those that could guide this Legislature to a best result.
That's
why, Mr. Speaker, not only we on this side of the House fully endorses this
resolution but we're asking the other side to as well. If they fail to do so,
what they're really saying is they are granting the right, they're granting the
opportunity and they will be bound to the right of the Member for Labrador West
to decide what the outcome will be. If they don't like that kind of binding
arbitration that they would presumably grant to the Member for Labrador West,
then obviously they have found fault with the element of binding arbitration.
That's
why, Mr. Speaker, we need to have a discussion about replacement workers. We
need to have a discussion about binding arbitration. We need to have a
discussion about other elements of labour relations conduct. We have to protect
the right to strike and to lock out. We have to recognize that it is a Charter
right. We have to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada has enforced or
emboldened the right to strike and to lock out, and the right to collective
bargaining in particular, as a Charter right, as a constitutional right. We have
to very mindful, Mr. Speaker, that any attempt to reduce or nullify that right –
even if it is potentially well-intentioned – can infringe upon a Charter right
and may not necessarily meet with favour of those who we would be proposing to
support. Because if a situation occurred where a future labour relations regime
were to invoke a binding arbitration conclusion in advance of the will of either
of the parties, then the parties could challenge the decision and challenge the
constitutionality of the very statute on which it was based as being in
violation, as being in contradiction to section 2 of the Charter.
That's
why, Mr. Speaker, it is so, so important for us to get this right and to listen
to the Member for Labrador West and his wise counsel that he is not prepared to
invoke a full prescription of measures at this point in time. He is prepared to
listen to the Legislature, to the will of the House, to invoke a consultation –
to ask government to invoke a consultation that includes all sides and experts.
In a few
minutes I would suspect we'll hear Members from the other side who will be
critical of the content of the motion because what they really wanted was for
the Member for Labrador West to provide all of the answers, and what they're
suggesting when they say that is that they would abide by those answers. They
would surrender their own capacity to guide the discussion. They would surrender
to the binding arbitration that will be determined by the Member for Labrador
West.
I don't
think, Mr. Speaker, that's what would ever be intended by the Member for
Labrador West. He is too wise, too understanding of the processes that we all
engage in, the importance of the House; but, most importantly, the importance of
getting this right, because the people that he represents, the hard-working
workers of Labrador West and the industry that supports our economy, is too
valuable to him to make such a mistake.
So I
support and applaud the Member for Labrador West. He is acting in good faith and
acting appropriately and asking the counsel of the Legislature to help guide
this government and make a wise decision.
Thank
you very much Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand as we debate the private Member's resolution that has
been put forward by my colleague from Labrador West and seconded by the
colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port.
While
I've heard some debate about it perhaps not having the teeth that it may need, I
have to agree with the principle that we can't pigeonhole ourselves. If we're
going to be inclusive and find solutions here, we've got to use the process to
ensure before we make commitments of certain things, we engage the right people.
We engage the industry, we engage workers who are unionized and non-unionized,
those within the companies, the labour unions and these types of things to have
that proper dialogue.
So I do
appreciate the resolution put forward. I've said this every time I get up to
speak. I will start the way I'm going to end by saying I wholeheartedly support
it and will be voting for that as part of that. I do have a number of concerns,
not specifically about the resolution put forward but the whole process that's
happening in our province right now in the labour unions, the negotiations and
strikes that we have here.
I have
some real concerns. I have concerns about what's happening in Labrador because,
as we know, history has it, disputes of that size, five, six, seven, maybe into
the eighth week you normally get a resolution. By that time, both who've
entrenched themselves either get arbitration, get a conciliator to sit down, to
come to a medium and come up with a process to put things in place.
As we go
in beyond the eighth week, it's concerning. Because we see the value of what
goes on with the iron ore mine in Labrador, the value it has to everybody in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but it's also a part of our history and we all have
connections in some way, shape or form. When the economies are bad in particular
areas, the fishery and these types of things, or a bad season in tourism, we can
always rely on the mining industry. One of the key areas around there is in
Labrador.
When we
have a dispute up there, it has an impact on everybody, but it's heartfelt. For
somebody like myself who stood on a picket line three times in their career, I
know the impact it has. I know how you worry: Is this going to go a day, a week,
a month? Is it going to go a year? You worry about your bills. You worry about
the impact on your family. You worry about the impact it has on your career.
Because, as the time goes, you had plans in your career to move to different
levels or get different levels of experience and training, it has an impact.
So
having that impact on people who are in places where they have commitments –
unfortunately, we all realize because the economy was so robust in Labrador a
couple of years ago, people got into some heavy commitments financially in
mortgages and that. Now, all of a sudden, in some cases where there are two in
family who are reliant on the mine and IOC for an income, and now they are just
getting strike pay, that's having a major impact.
While
you give credit to – most financial institutions understand strikes end at some
time, that people will get back to a norm. They, themselves, also realize that
they have expenditures out there and they need to be able to ensure that people
are going to be able to be fluent and get it back.
We need
to ensure that all those involved in processes like this have a stake in what is
being done and support that we're going to get to an outcome, and we're going to
get an outcome that works for everybody. So, in these cases, there are some
challenges, no doubt.
I
support the fact here that government needs to take a major stake in what's
going on here. We do have labour laws here. We do have a department or a
division that deals with that. We do have certain rights and responsibilities as
a government to ensure that labour negotiations and labour disputes are dealt
with in a timely fashion. And I know you don't want to get heavy-handed, because
we don't encourage that in any way, shape or form in anywhere; but, at times,
people have to be made accountable. Sometimes people have to be directed in a
direction that gets to a solution, and that's what I see is being proposed here.
It's
being proposed here that government immediately – and while I say it says urge
government, but to me, if I'm going to urge somebody to do something, I'm saying
let's do it now. Let's not wait; let's not put it off. Let's not think about it;
let's do it. And while we're doing it, we can do it right by making sure we have
the right people who have the ability to come up with solutions that work for
people. It's disheartening when you look at what's happening in Gander with D-J
Composites. We're going into the second year where people are on strike, with no
indication that there's even any way of resolving this. Yet, we have again
labour laws. We have a department, we've brought in people to negotiate, there's
been arbitration, there have been discussions and there have even been
recommendations.
That
becomes concerning, because at the end of the day somebody has to be made
accountable. And in this case – and I'm not bashing the company in this case.
But it's alarming that the company has violated on two occasions that we know of
issues and have been identified that they haven't followed the labour laws, yet
they're not made accountable.
What
worries me about that, it's not just these two incidents that are on the go –
this is a bigger picture here. It's industry. It's about businesses who do
business here, about those we're going to try to attract. It's also about those
who are unionized and non-unionized, knowing that there has to be a proper
approach. People have to have privileges and rights, but they also have to have
responsibilities.
Labour
unions have responsibilities, non-unionized employees have responsibilities but
the employers have responsibilities. With those responsibilities comes a
commitment that you're going to follow the proper laws of the land and you're
going to do what's in the best interest of all involved. And that's what worries
me about what's happened out in Gander, that we haven't made them accountable,
even though it's been identified and they've been found guilty, for want of a
better phrase, of not following the laws that we have of the land that protects
everybody involved as employers and employees.
That's
disheartening here, and I think we need to be a little bit more assertive when
we say this is what you need to follow. Here are the responsibilities you have.
You have privileges and you have rights and we're going to respect those and
we're going to protect those, but under responsibilities, if you violate a
certain thing, you're made accountable. We don't chastise you forever and a day,
but we make you accountable. You rectify that, then we go back to having a good
working relationship and we move to the next level.
We need
to get a little bit more assertive on that. I don't know if that's because we
need to change legislation or we need to show the companies coming in here that
these are the laws that need to be followed, or do we set an example as part of
what we do. There are certain things that need to be done as we progress this.
While my
colleagues here have talked about urging government to do things, my philosophy
is let's immediately set a process. I'm not saying let's define it, etched in
stone. I agree, the minister responsible had noted that you don't want to set
this phase process that it can't change and this is the only way it can proceed
and then we find out it doesn't work for all agencies or all organizations.
I worked
with the labour unions for a period of time. I was part of a negotiation that
realized things change as you go through it. It changes for company to company.
While laws and regulations are processes you follow and they're guidelines in
certain areas – because certain employers, certain companies, certain groups of
employees may have a different nuance on how they get to a solution to the
challenges they have in labour negotiations. So I respect that and I think it
can't be just black and white. There has to be some grey areas there that you
come to a consensus.
Through
that consensus process, we do have and we've always adopted – conciliation has
always been one. Going to arbitration has always been processes there, but they
only work if both sides agree that the recommendations that are going to be put
forward are the ones you live by. You may not always like the outcomes. You may
have to grin and bear it sometimes, or you may have to then go back and find
another approach to argue why things need to be changed so that they're made
fairer. That becomes the even process in any labour negotiations.
The
concerns we have here, and what I know is being brought forward, is that at the
end of the day if there is not a desire for some reason by a company or a labour
union or a group of employees to get at the table, come up with a workable
solution, then we have a challenge, because it's not only the impact on those
individuals. In some cases it's 99 per cent of the individuals who have very
little input who get affected the most, because it's labour union leaders.
It could
be other people who are chairs of a committee. It could be the company's
management who are the ones who are making these decisions that impact other
people's lives and may be making them not in good faith for whatever reason.
Sometimes it's personality conflicts. Sometimes it's a little bit of payback,
depending what the rationale is. So we all should be following standard
operational procedures and respectful manners of how we negotiate.
As we
get to discussing this, I like this, but the thing that I think we need to be
cognizant of – and I mentioned in the House and we had a debate the other day –
PMRs, unfortunately, are not binding. If there was a PMR here that all agreed to
and we had open debate, there should be logistically some point that that
becomes something that has some meat to it and can be taken to the next level.
Maybe it
goes to the ministry responsible and it becomes legislation within 12 months. I
don't know. They're things I've only been thinking about in the last number of
weeks, about how we make this more efficient in what we do, and because what we
do in this House is reflective of what our citizens tell us.
The
Member for Labrador West, I know what he's presenting here. He's presenting
something that's reflective of what he's hearing on the streets. He's seeing the
impact it's having on the citizens he represents. He understands the fear of
what impact it may have on the company and its markets and the longevity. Just
as we're making some inroads in Labrador of getting some of the other things
moving, particularly in Labrador West, you might now have another black eye that
you don't want because we can't come to a resolution on something that is very
efficient when it comes to our reputation.
We've
got great workers up there. We had a great mine that's been operational. We've
been providing great services. The steel products that are produced by the iron
ore that's mined up there are second to none. So we've had that. We've had a
market.
As a
matter of fact, we've had a market where other companies from outside Canada are
willing to come in and invest tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars
to take it to the next level. When we get to that point, the one thing no
company wants, and no employee wants, is about not having good labour relations
and labour actions.
The
other big challenge here is the impact it has on those who don't work directly
for the mine or have no direct stake into receiving a paycheque from the mine
company, but are those businesses, those small operations, those people who rely
on the income that the miners and the managers and all the support people who
work for the mine have. That has a major impact on their survival.
I read
an article only recently about the fact that when they get to – I think one of
the employers' council said at week 10 small companies have to decide cutting
back hours, laying off staff, reducing services. That has an impact.
The
other fears you have when you're on strike – and I've been there – is your
health insurance. What impact does that have? You've got a family, you've got
issues that you need, there are drugs you need, there are treatments you may
need. There's a bigger issue than just a dispute between a union and an
employer, or a non-union group and an employer. There are all the other fallout
effects that it has on our society. Urging government is the common sense thing
because we have a vested interest. Somebody's got to support our citizens.
We have
a responsibility, that if our citizens are in peril we must step up and help
them out. Well, you know what? We've got a lot of challenges in this province,
so we'd prefer to be able to help other citizens who can't help themselves. If
we had the labour disputes taken care of and those employees who want to be back
to work are back doing what they were doing before – very diligently providing
services and products, earning money, paying taxes, being productive in society
and in their communities and the communities and them benefiting from that. When
that breaks down, we've got a challenge.
Bringing
this PMR forward, I would hope, at least brings a bit more light that we in the
House of Assembly have to be a little bit more assertive. Urging is fine, and
that's – I take urging as an assertive word, to say we've got to do something
and we've got to do it immediately.
So using
that word, I think will now send a message. We'll all, I would think, be
supporting that. I know we will, being the Official Opposition, would give an
indication to whatever the department can do, responsible – whatever the Premier
could do, and I know the Premier has some rights – and we've had this debate
earlier the week – and some responsibilities to foster moving things a lot
quicker, as part of that.
If we
all come to an understanding and an agreement that we're going to do this, this
is going to urge immediate solutions or contexts, discussions, engagement – so
that D-J Composites get back to work and start earning a decent income again;
that the company's reputation gets back on an even keel; that the products get
produced out there; that people in Gander are not on the edge of whether or not
that company's going to stay and survive out there. The same way in our mining
industry, particularly in Labrador.
Again, I
keep reiterating this. It's a positive what's happened just in the last week
over there on another side; yet, now we're challenged with something else. So we
need to make sure – whatever it is we can do in this house. Whatever it is.
Sometimes it's to use the influence we have; sometimes it's to use the legal
routes we have; sometimes it's to use our political influence to ensure that
what we do works for citizens and solves the issues.
We all
know that 99 per cent of the work we do is we're asked to try to intervene to
solve an issue for a constituent. Well, do you know what? We're being asked in
the House of Assembly to solve an issue for all constituents. Because everybody
who is in the workforce are either unionized or non-unionized, and that's part
of that. We know every business out there would like government to have a fluent
process where they know they can operate properly. If there's a dispute with
their employees, that it can be resolved without any major disruption to what
they do as a company.
So I
just want to end, Mr. Speaker, by again thanking the Members for bringing this
forward and knowing that we will be strongly urging everybody to vote for this
resolution.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly great to take a few moments here this afternoon to debate the private
Member's resolution before the floor of the House of Assembly today, the motion
being introduced by the Member for Labrador West and myself, as the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, to second this motion. It's certainly great to hear
the comments from the Members of the Opposition and it sounds like they are in
full support of this motion today.
The minister responsible for Fisheries and Land
Resources, formerly responsible for Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, spoke
very eloquently today and certainly has in his previous capacity a great
understanding of this motion and what the intent of the motion is.
I am just going to read into the record once again, Mr.
Speaker, and primarily so I can highlight the spirit and intent of the motion,
as I anticipate comments from Members of the Third Party shortly after I adjourn
my portion of the debate.
The motion as it stands states: “BE IT RESOLVED that he
House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin
consultations with unions and employers to identify measures that would support
the collective bargaining process thereby avoiding prolonged work stoppages
while respecting the rights of both unionized and non-unionized employees such
that the long-term sustainability of various industries is preserved to the
benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.”
Mr. Speaker, some of the key words in that resolution –
and I really wish to highlight them because there was some reference from the
Leader of the Opposition on a private Member's resolution and the fact that it
primarily is a non-binding type of resolution.
The spirit of this motion this afternoon is that we're
asking government, and we're asking all Members on the floor of this House of
Assembly, to begin consultations with unions and employers to identify measures
that would support the collective bargaining process.
Now, if measures are identified this afternoon to
support the collective bargaining process, well then, that's certainly a bonus,
absolutely. If any Member of this Legislature who wishes to partake in debate
this afternoon can identify some measures that would support the collective
bargaining process then by all means, we on the government side are all ears to
anything that may be identified.
The primary intent and the spirit of this motion is so
that we're asking for some consultations. The reason the Member for Labrador
West is seeking this motion and urging our government to consider this motion
is, of course, as we know, due to the strike right now in Labrador with IOC and
the Local 5795, I believe is it, to the Member for Labrador West.
Between the union right now and the company, we have a
strike that's been ongoing just over seven weeks. This strike is affecting some
1,300 employees, 1,300
workers, Mr. Speaker. What's also being affected, of course, in addition to the
workers, is the company. The company's ability, their productivity, their profit
margins are being affected and, with that, Mr. Speaker, we have a direct
subsequent impact on the municipality, on the region as a whole. Then more
importantly for us as legislators and Members in this House of Assembly, we
actually have a direct impact on the royalties that we receive through mining,
which affect, ultimately, our provincial Treasury.
So
anytime we see any type of work stoppage, any type of strike, there's a direct
impact on a number of players and on a number of fronts.
Today,
we're asking our government to consider: How can we rectify these types of
situations? This strike is the most recent strike that's happened in our
province right now. As the Members of the Opposition have pointed out, we're
also seeing a strike right now that has been ongoing for well over a year in
Gander, the community of Gander with the company D-J Composites and their union
as well. Then, most recently, prior to that strike, the other most recent strike
that has impacted our province is the strike that happened in Lower Cove, which
is situated on the Port au Port Peninsula, the district which I'm so fortunate
to represent.
Mr.
Speaker, you may recall during that strike, myself and you actually took some
time to go meet with both the employer and the employees. We met with the
employees on the picket line to listen to them and hear their concerns and we
also spent some time to sit down and meet with the employer. We further actually
sat down with some of the representatives and the leaders of the union
representing that group.
In the
last just two-and-one-half years alone, we've now had our third strike that is
impacting companies, employees, regions and the results on our provincial
Treasury. Today, we're looking at urging our government to begin consultations
to see if we can't rectify and find better ways to do business when it comes to
this.
The
Member for Labrador West had suggested in his opening remarks, identified some
of the key stakeholders that we should be engaging conversations with. He stated
specifically the Federation of Labour should be someone we could consult with.
Naturally, we should consult with the Federation of Labour but also various
labour unions and the Employers' Council.
The
Employer's Council of Newfoundland and Labrador represents a wide-ranging group
of employers. We have various Boards of Trade that could be engaged in this type
of dialogue, various Chambers of Commerce, of course, industry, and in this
particular case, the steel industry, as well as government. We're certainly
consulting with those within government and consulting with those within our own
labour relations agency as well.
Mr.
Speaker, again, around the primary spirit and intent of the motion, and I wanted
to reiterate that, the Member for CBS delivered a speech, I believe a prepared
speech, and he highlighted some key points that he said were fundamental to our
government and were fundamental to all governments. He said the motion is
talking about identifying measures which our government already have the
responsibility of. He's suggesting that it's our government's responsibility to
already be doing this work and finding measures to fix this problem should go
without saying.
Again,
we understand that government has a role to play, and we understand that the
Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour has a role to play, but
that's why we have an independent Labour Relations Board. So what we're saying
is we should be going out to these groups that I just mentioned to seek some
input around how we can find ways to support a better collective bargaining
process, but in doing so, while also protecting the rights of both the unionized
employees and non-unionized employees and protecting the rights of the business
as well.
Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned, the effects of this strike are certainly well-known and
have been going on for just over seven weeks right now.
Some of
the things that I can appreciate and I suspect we'll hear, particularly given
Question Period today in which the Leader of the Third Party had asked what we
should do around considering some legislation for anti-replacement workers to
this effect. I can appreciate the opinion from the Leader of the Third Party and
I'm sure we'll hear from her shortly.
On that
note, in respecting everyone's opinion, in order to look at any type of
anti-replacement worker legislation, we can only look across other jurisdictions
in this country, as to what other jurisdictions are doing right now. Currently,
we only have anti-replacement legislation in British Columbia and Quebec.
I'm just
going to talk a little bit about what that looks like there and how that has
some impact on those provinces. I'm also just going to take a quick moment to
talk about some of the reasons why others are against this type of legislation.
I just want to highlight both the for and against because I think, at the end of
the day, what we're suggesting here is we need to find some type of balance that
does not involve some drastic sweeping legislation that is only being done in
two provinces, and, of course, a balance is going to be key to recognizing how
we can move forward with the collective bargaining process and supporting both
companies and unions in this process.
So, as I
mentioned, Mr. Speaker, currently there's anti-replacement legislation in
British Columbia and Quebec. BC's laws came into effect in 1993 and the Quebec
legislation came in, in 1978. Banning the use of temporary replacement workers
during a strike or a lockout has some several noted negative economic
consequences. This has been noted through a variety of studies.
One
study in particular that myself and the Member for Labrador West reviewed prior
to debate today is one that came from the Fraser Institute. I don't think I need
to take any great length of time to elaborate on some of the good work that
comes from the Fraser Institute as a well-respected institute providing this
type of information. The two provinces – and I'll quote – that currently ban
temporary replacement workers, Quebec and British Columbia, experienced the
greatest loss in per days per 1,000 workers over an eight year period from 2008
to 2016. “Quebec had 1,100 person-days lost per 1,000 workers; in British
Columbia it was 798.”
“In
comparison, the person-days lost per 1,000 workers in the three provinces with
the lowest losses are 163 in Nova Scotia, 89 in Alberta, and 32 in Prince Edward
Island.” Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this is just pointing to the fact that these
types of work stoppages that banned temporary replacement workers have seemed to
have had a tremendous negative impact on those areas. In particular, it has led
to some decreased investment, it discourages existing businesses from
investment, it discourages outside firms and companies from coming in to invest
and it actually provides a bit of an advantage for unions over the employers.
That's just a little bit in that regard with respect to reasons why it has had
some negative impacts in terms of anti-replacement worker legislation.
In
addition, arguments for the anti-replacement worker legislation, the only
leverage unions have are going to be their employees. So if work can't get done
through replacement workers, the unions are kind of left powerless in cases of
lockouts. Supporters of anti-replacement legislation will argue that
jurisdictions that use this have fewer workdays as I've just mentioned. Others
argue this is an attack on the rights of business owners to operate a business
freely. We live in a free country, Mr. Speaker, and businesses have the right to
operate freely.
Those
are just two small examples, but I don't need to go into too great specifics;
again, just highlighting the understanding that we, as a government, are aware
of both reasons for anti-replacement worker legislation and against. But the
intent and the spirit of this motion today was to recognize it's an important
conversation to have in our Legislature. It's currently the situation which
prompted the Member to bring it forward as having a detrimental impact on the
region he represents, as I said, and the province as a whole.
We're
looking to have this conversation to identify measures in ways we can support
the collective bargaining process. I think that's what the intent of a private
Member's resolution is by my understanding, Mr. Speaker, any resolution that has
been brought forward on a Wednesday afternoon in this House, being Private
Members' Day.
Yes, we
are aware. As the leader of the Opposition indicated, it is non-binding. He said
if this is non-binding, we'd like to see action sooner. I would suggest to the
leader of the Opposition if he's in consultation with the Leader of the PC Party
and they see fit ways to begin consultations on their own or see it fit to have
ways for us, as a government, to begin consultations and want to have influence
on that process, then by all means, we are all ears. The intent today was to
bring it into the public light, to discuss it on the public record and to allow
the Member for Labrador West to express his deep concern for the workers in this
case, for the company in this case and for all of the citizens he represents in
the District of Labrador West.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly very proud to stand here today as a seconder to
the motion. I certainly appreciate where the Member is coming from. Again, it
looks like we have support from the Members of the PC Party in Opposition.
I'll certainly look forward to comments from the Leader of the Third Party.
Then, in particular, I certainly look forward to hearing the Member for Labrador
West conclude his closing remarks as we conclude debate before the afternoon
ends.
With that, Mr. Speaker, my full support is behind the
spirit and intent of this private Member's resolution today. I thank the Member
for Labrador West for bringing it in.
Thank you very much.
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 happy to have the opportunity to speak to this private
Member's motion. I've been sitting here listening to a lot of things being said
by the government side of the House, especially the first two speakers, which
really go around in circles about the issues that we're concerned about. It
really put the whole situation in a bit of a fog.
I want
to read the resolution that we're dealing with here today: “… that the House of
Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin consultations
with unions and employers to identify measures that would support the collective
bargaining process thereby avoiding” –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– “prolonged work stoppages
while respecting the rights of both the unionized and non-unionized employees
such that the long-term sustainability of various industries is preserved to the
benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.”
I point
out to the Member for Labrador West, and I point out to everybody else in the
House, that we have a Labour Relations Act.
In that Labour Relations Act there's a
whole process. You start with collective bargaining, sitting at the table and
starting the negotiations. If that process becomes difficult, you move into
looking for a conciliation officer; the parties go to the minister and you get a
conciliation officer. A conciliation officer could lead to the formation of a
consolidation board. The board has all kinds of powers, the power to subpoena
witnesses, to subpoena documents, et cetera.
In both
cases recommendations get made to the minister. If the conciliation board
doesn't get anywhere you can have a mediator. That's also in the
Labour Relations Act. All of this is
the process that's in place. If there's anything else that needs to be done in
that process, I know the labour movement is waiting – and have been waiting for
a long time – to sit down with the government to look at the
Labour Relations Act and deal with the whole
Labour Relations Act because there's so much in it that needs
changing.
This is
why we talked about the motion that's here today as being rather vague. It's
skirting around issues and not really naming an issue. If the issue we're
talking about here today is the issue in particular of D-J Composites, who are
out there in Gander with people locked out for 17 months and it's been seen that
nothing else is going to work, then why isn't government listening to what the
union has said to them. The union has called for binding arbitration. They have
said: We're not for binding arbitration as a normal part of the process;
however, in a situation like this we are saying it looks like it's the only
thing that can work.
It's not
me standing and saying this, it's the union. It's wrong for the government side
of the House to act as if they don't know that was said by them. They've seen
the letters that went in from the union. They received the letters. They know
the union has said that.
What I
want to speak to and to remind the other side of the House about is what
happened in 2011 when we had the Vale strike in Labrador – again, in Labrador –
by another multi-national corporation who kept their workers out for 18 months,
the Voisey's Bay workers. Because of that, the government set up a commission
and this government, the people on the other side of the House, keep refusing to
pay attention to what the commission said. It's maddening for me that they are
refusing to pay attention to the Roil commission and what the recommendation of
the Roil commission was.
The
report talked about the fact that we were in a dangerous situation now in the
province because we had multi-national corporations who were moving in who did
not value our values with regard to workers' rights and with regard to labour
relations. That we have to pay attention to that.
There
was a very, very important recommendation – and I'm going to read it and put it
in the record because they don't seem to have read it. It was recommendation 5.
“The Commission recommends that Government seek to amend the
Labour Relations Act to provide a
process for the imposition of a collective agreement in the following
circumstances when: (a) one of the employer or the bargaining agent makes
application; and (b) the applicant shall have been found by the Labour Relations
Board to have bargained in good faith; and (c) all of the conditions precedent
to a strike or lockout have been met; (d) it is apparent that strike and/or
lockout mechanisms have been ineffective in bringing about resolution of the
dispute; (e) the Labour Relations Board is satisfied that the collective
bargaining process has failed; and (f) the public interest requires the
imposition of a collective agreement.
“Once
such an application is successful, the terms of the new collective agreement
should still be set out by the parties themselves, if they are able or, failing
success, by an independent third party.
“The
Commission further recommends that Government seek to amend the
Labour Relations Act to provide that,
once an application is successful in establishing that the public interest
requires the imposition of a collective agreement, the following steps should be
taken: “(a) the employer and the bargaining agent shall a further 30 days in
which to reach a collective agreement; (b) failing agreement, the Labour
Relations Board shall refer the dispute to a three-person arbitration panel
appointed by the Board to settle the terms of a collective agreement between the
employer and the bargaining agent; (c) the arbitration panel shall have the
powers of a conciliation board under the
Act; and (d) the panel's decision on the collective agreement shall be
binding on the parties for a period of not less than one year.”
The
labour movement accepted that recommendation. They approved of that
recommendation, not because they're just seeking to have binding arbitration but
if you come to a situation that's absolutely impossible – and I would say Gander
right now is absolutely impossible – then you bring in binding arbitration. I
really question some of the comments that were made with regard to workers'
rights and the constitution, et cetera, et cetera. That was all clouds that we
would be putting on to try to get away from what the reality is here.
So let's
be clear, this is not against the labour movement, what I'm saying. I'm saying
what the labour movement has said in these situations this has to happen;
they're asking for it. Now, are we at that point in Labrador West? I don't think
so. We're not at that point. So we're not talking about Labrador West; we're
talking about the principle.
The
Member for Lab West did point out that the two situations in the province have
sort of instigated his Member's statement – I understand that, but in the
concern that I have around binding arbitration, it's the Gander situation that
I'm talking about. I want to make that very clear.
When I
look at the motion that's here, there are things in it that I can't say that I
don't want you to have consultations with unions and employers to identify
measures that would support the collective bargaining process. That needs to
happen, but that's the review of the
Labour Relations Act that should be happening. And if we're talking about
trying to deal with the present situation in Gander, in particular, then this is
not going to that. This will take much too long. We need something done now, and
doing something now would be bringing in binding arbitration, as the workers
themselves and their union have asked for.
It's
very disingenuous what some of the speakers are saying here in the House. I
cannot agree with everything that's in motion. I can agree with the spirit of
most of it. So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that I want to make to the
motion.
I move,
seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre, that the words “both the unionized
and non-unionized” be removed from the motion.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
The
House will recess while we review the proposed amendment.
This
House is in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
After
reviewing the amendment, it is said to be in order.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to say that I'm glad it is, especially because the Member for Labrador West
has told me that he has no problem with the amendment. It does not take away
from the spirit of what he's saying and you obviously don't think it takes away
from the spirit either.
I'd like
to use my last minutes to speak again to the issues with the regard to labour
relations. I'd like to point out again – focusing on Gander at the moment – that
the Member for St. John's Centre, on behalf of our party as Leader, and the
leader before her, Earle McCurdy as well, has spent time with the workers in
Gander. Why they are still out on that – accepting being there. They're locked
out but they could walk away. Why they're still there and still considering
themselves workers for that company is the issue of their rights, workers'
rights and the rights that are being eroded.
That's
the problem. That was the problem up in Voisey's Bay as well. There are rights
that are being eroded and these multi-national corporations do not understand.
They don't have the same understanding of our labour relations climate, our
culture in Canada. That's happening also in Lab West. Some of the things that
IOC is going after are things that these workers have gained in the past. They
do not want to give up – and shouldn't be giving up – things that have been
gained in the past. So the whole thing of the erosion of the workers' rights is
really the major issue.
This was
something that the Roil commission talked about in great detail, that Vale –
because it was Vale at that time for that strike – was in fact taking away
rights and benefits of Canadian workers and imposing a labour relations regime,
more typical of an undeveloped country. Roil said it very clearly in his report.
He also pointed out that the traditional tool of moral suasion that a government
might use to bring parties to end their labour dispute would have less effect on
a large multi-national corporation than it would have on a local company.
They
explained that because some of these corporations have annual budgets larger
than those of a province. They can keep one of their operations closed and ramp
up production somewhere else to make up for it. These are all the points that
are in Roil's report.
He also
noted that although unions can't access funds from national networks to support
a local prolonged labour dispute, which is what is happening in Gander and is
happening in Lab West as well. Their economic strength doesn't match the
multinational corporation in terms of holding out. I think that's the issue. It
isn't two equal people on a see-saw. That's not what it is.
One of
the few rights that the workers have that is supposed to give them some strength
when negotiations break down is being able to be on strike. That's one of the
things they have, and it's supposed to cause the company pain so that the
company will come to the table and end the strike.
If the
companies have the power that these multinationals have and if, like D-J
Composites, they're using workers inside that are replacing the workers outside,
they're doing it in very fuzzy means there in Gander. They are. They're creating
new titles for a job and hiring people. They're still doing the work of the
people who've been locked out, but they're saying they're not replacement
workers because they're not replacing the job with the same title. Well, we all
know what that is. That's a game.
The
panel called for the protection of Canadian labour relations values and warned
about the negative impact of the multinational corporations on labour relations
and collective bargaining. That's why Roil did recommendation 5. The panel
recommended that government re-examine the mechanisms by which it facilities
collective bargaining to take into account the need to ensure that such
corporations respond to Canadian labour relations values and the relative
economic weight of the parties and the collective bargaining relationship.
I would
hope that in sitting down with unions and employers, as the Member for Labrador
West is suggesting, that the government would use the intent of what Roil said
in what I just read out. That should be what the intent should be in sitting
down, recognizing we have an unequal situation here and being forthright with
the companies. D-J Composites is not suffering. They're not suffering at all. So
there has to be complete open, straight talk about what they're doing, and
that's what has to happen.
If
government goes in thinking: Oh, we have two groups here who are equal with each
other and they're just not playing ball. That's not what it is. D-J Composites
is getting away with locking workers out for 17 months. I hope to heavens we're
not going to see Labrador West, the workers out on a picket line for that long.
I hope that's not going to happen.
The Roil
commission also recommended that the
Labour Relations Act, and this is what the recommendation was about, so I'll
read it again: Be changed to allow the Labour Relations Board to set up a
binding arbitration panel to settle disputes where collective bargaining has
truly failed and the strike lockout provision has proved ineffective.
I urge
the government, if they are going to do what they're suggesting in this private
Member's motion, that they do it based on the spirit of what Roil found in doing
the inquiry into what happened in Labrador.
Roil
also talked about replacement workers but didn't make a recommendation, but he
did point out how replacement workers really gives the company an advantage over
the workers and denies their power when they're striking.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I have finished.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member her speaking time has expired.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a couple of minutes. I do thank the Member for giving me the
opportunity to say a couple of words and to show my support for this private
Member's motion.
MS. MICHAEL:
Amended motion.
MR. LANE:
Well, okay, amended motion my
colleague says. I had no problem with either motion, but I do understand why the
Member made the amendment and I respect that. I supported both motions and I
support the spirit of what's being brought forward here.
I heard
the term disingenuous used somewhere throughout the speech and I would say I
don't find it that way at all. If I was the Member for
Labrador West and I had workers and an industry that the town depended on the
way it did and had all those people affected, whether it be directly or
indirectly and the businesses and everyone in that community, I would be doing
the types of things that he is doing here today bringing attention to those
issues. If nothing else, at least it brings attention here in this House of
Assembly, attention publicly to the issues that are occurring up there.
Certainly, we all hope that cooler heads prevail, that
they get back to the table and iron out an agreement for the workers up there in
Labrador West and they can all get back to work. That's really what I think this
is all about. I think that was his intention. I won't put words in his mouth,
but it wasn't really about D-J Composites – not that I'm sure he's concerned
like we all are about that situation as well. I think it was more about the
people in his community, and I support him on that.
With that said, though, I will agree with the Member
for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi in terms of what she said about that Roil
commission and so on, the recommendations. I would tend to agree with what's in
that report, that we really do need to look at the
Labour Relations Act and do a review of the
Labour Relations Act with
stakeholders on both sides, the employer side and the labour side to see
if we can make some improvements to it.
There is
a process currently in place, as the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi
already talked about, about going through the stages. Then, of course, you can
have conciliation and mediation and all those things, and a conciliation board
and so on. As she said and as indicated in that Roil commission, we –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
– if you get to a point, I
think it's important that if you get to a point –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.
MR. LANE:
Thanks.
Anyway,
you have my support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
appreciate the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands getting up. I think he
thought he had more time than he actually did. Anyway, I appreciate his remarks.
What
we've seen here today is a great discussion. I'm very pleased that I see support
from all sides of the House on this important PMR today. You know what? The
Member for CBS had some good comments and very supportive comments, the fact
around it's a very serious issue that we have in Lab West. That's the one he
referred to and Lab West is a great place, I couldn't agree with him more. The
situation we have there today is certainly not helping our situation.
What he
said about the Premier being there – the Premier was there and provided his
support. He continues to do so, by the way, because anything that's happening
between myself and a union and the company, the Premier is certainly well
involved in it. We're trying to make the collective bargaining process that we
have in place, we're trying to make it work, but as I've said so many times and
I'll say it again before I sit down, I'm sure, that in order for a collective
bargaining process to work we have to get people talking.
I also
thank the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and his remarks, of course,
the importance of a strong labour legislation. That is very important. It was
brought up by other Members as well, that it's time to look at the
Labour Relations Act. Well, you know
what? That's what this consultation is all about. Maybe that's what will come
back from consultations, and maybe that's what we need, to look at the
Labour Relations Act and to strengthen
the act to avoid these long work stoppages.
The
Opposition Leader, as well, I appreciate his remarks and using the process, I
think he was fully supportive of the consultation process and the need to
consult with both sides – with both union and industry. One thing he said that I
thought was very important. Even though, where we are today, all sides need to
follow the laws of the land, and that's so true.
I'm
certainly not suggesting, at this point, that anybody is not following the laws
of the land, the labour laws that we have in place, but it's very important for
the integrity of the communities. Because no matter what happens in this
dispute, we all need and the people who are on strike need a place of employment
to go back to. That place of employment needs to be sustainable; it needs to be
there for the long haul.
Yes,
there are some disagreements that we have in place right now. I'm sure – I'm
confident that in very short order, I hope that these differences will be
resolved and we will reach an agreement that will benefit both sides of the
argument and that these workers can get back to work and do what we do best.
He
referred to – and he's totally right again – we have a superior product that we
produce in Lab West through the Iron Ore Company and the ore of the Labrador
Trough. It's a product that's becoming more valuable every day on the world
market because of the environmental issues, especially in China. They're looking
for a more refined product to use in their smelters, and we have that. But
unless we're in a position to produce it, we're not getting the benefit from it.
The
impacts on businesses and families – that's my point, that this work stoppage
that we see and the accusations and the allegations that are going around, it's
really tearing the community apart. Everybody is suffering for that. Every man,
woman and child in Labrador West is feeling the negative impact of this work
stoppage.
I also
thank the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port who seconded the motion. I
think he did a good job of making the fact that we need a balanced approach to
this. I know the Members of the Third Party also mentioned that. Right now,
there seems to be an imbalance, but we have to be careful that we don't swing
the pendulum too far. That's why we need to consult. That's why we need to
involve all aspects of labour. Whether it's the union or the employer, they all
play a role. But we have to have a system in place that both sides can be
sustainable. The pros and cons of certain pieces of legislation – there are pros
and cons to everything, and I'm sure as we do the consultations, these pros and
cons will come to light. We'll deal with them.
I can
assure the Members opposite – they say it's a vague resolution. Well, I don't
think so because I think it does say a lot. But unless we do something about it,
of course, they're right. If we don't act on it, then it's not worth the paper
it's written on.
I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the Members of this House that this
resolution will be acted upon because I'm living it now. I'm living the effects
of not having, maybe, the proper protocols in place or whatever, but I feel that
the time has come to really sit down with all sides to look at this.
I also
thank the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi. I thank her for her
amendment. I can see the merit of that. I don't see it changing the intent of
what I'm trying to do here. I will say – just for the benefit of the Member
probably – why I did insert unionized and non-unionized members, because that's
what I'm living with today. I'm seeing the unionized on the outside and
non-unionized on the inside that have to work; they don't have a choice. It's
not the replacement workers I'm talking about; I'm talking about the
non-unionized employees. That's why I put it in to make sure that we respect
their rights as well, because they do have rights. Everybody has rights in this
world. But if they feel that it's better left out, then certainly as long as all
employees are covered, I have no problem with that.
I can be
rest assured as well and we can be all rest assured that everything that the
Member said will be brought up in these consultations, whether it's the Roil
Commission, whether it's the changing of the
Labour Relations Act, these are all
things that will be discussed, I'm sure.
I thank
her for that amendment. Protecting the Canadian labour relations values is
certainly very, very important for all of us. At this point, she's suggesting
that maybe – and she's referring to D-J Composites in particular – there's an
unequal playing field there right now. I don't disagree with that. But as I said
earlier, we have to make sure that when we address that, we don't swing the
pendulum too far the other way. There is a balanced approach that we have to
take.
I don't
disagree with the Member that there is an unequal playing field here right now
because there well may be, but we have to make sure that anything we do, we take
into consideration the rights of unions, the rights of companies and that we
don't do anything that hinders the climate of development within the province.
Because, as I said in my opening remarks, what we do here is very, very
important. It has to be in the best interest of everybody because without
employers and industry, there will be no employees. So we have to make sure that
remains sustainable.
I do
take somewhat of an exception to the insinuation that maybe some of us on this
side were disingenuous in our remarks. Well, I can assure the hon. Member, I'm
not speaking for any other, but I'm didn't hear anything disingenuous. I can
speak for myself that what I'm saying today I'm very passionate about. I'm very
passionate; I'm very concerned about what's happening in the labour movement,
especially in Labrador West right now. I'm very concerned. I see what it's doing
to my community and I see what it can do any community that's in the same
situation. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands alluded to that.
So what
I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not disingenuous because I'm very
passionate about this. I see the need that we need to act on this. I see the
need for the sake of the whole community, not only the workers but everybody who
lives in that community because everybody is affected by this.
I would
urge both the company and the union at this point, because what we do here today
is not going to help the situation in Lab West today – hopefully, we can learn
from this situation and do something that prevents any future situations of the
like. What needs to happen today in Labrador West, in particular, is that both
sides get back to the bargaining table and talk and negotiate, because I am
convinced that they're not that far apart.
When you
talk about what the issues are, yes, a lot of it is principle, and we have to
protect our principles. There's no question about that. Whether it's temporary
workforce, whether it's replacement workforce, we have to protect our
principles. Unions are built on principles.
I lived
in the union towns. I worked in that environment. I know what it's like to work
in that environment. I worked both sides of it, but I can tell you, if people
are prepared to listen to each other and talk to each other, we can work in
harmony.
I was a
supervisor for many years and I worked with many union members. I tell you, I
have a lot of respect for anybody who works in that environment in the mining
industry, whether they're unionized or non-unionized, I have a lot of respect
for them. I tell you, what I see happening today has some great concern for me.
I am
very pleased that all sides of the House are supportive of my PMR. It's
something that I felt was necessary to do. I don't have a problem with the
amendment that the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi put forward, not at
all. I just gave you the reasons why I thought it was important that we respect
the rights of all workers, whether unionized or non-unionized. We all have
rights. They all have rights, but if it's the wish of the Assembly to support
that, I don't have a problem with it.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I want to thank everybody for their input. I thank everybody for
the debate, I think it's a healthy one. I look forward, in the days ahead, to
taking action on what we've said here today. I want to put action to words
because words mean nothing unless they're acted upon.
Once
again, I say to my constituents in Labrador West, keep the faith. We will get
through this. It's tough going right now but I'm confident that within the next
little while we will see a resolution that both sides can live with and we can
get back to a thriving region where we've just witnessed two or three years of
very hard times in the downturn of the mining industry.
I see
light at the end of the tunnel. I want us to get back to what we do best and
that's producing a world-class iron ore product that's the envy of the world
market.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amended motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Passed.
On
motion, amendment carried.
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.
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we adjourn, I just
want to remind Members that the House Management Commission is meeting tonight,
right after the House has adjourned. I'd probably advise the front row,
especially on government side, to clear your tables, your desks.
It being
Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House now stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon.