November 19, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 43
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the public gallery, I would like to welcome Scott and Joann Parsons,
of Parsons & Sons Transportation, who are joining us today for a Member's
statement.
Welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Fortune Bay -
Cape la Hune, Harbour Main and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge a resident in my district who has recently
been acknowledged for his contribution to the music industry and the culture of
our province. I speak of Mr. Ralph O'Brien who was recently awarded the Lifetime
Achievement Award from MusicNL.
Ralph's
band, the Sons of Erin, were formed in Newfoundland in 1968, and it wasn't too
long before Ralph became a pillar of strength for the promotion of our music
culture and the development of skills for the up-and-coming young artists.
Ralph
and his bandmates are the godfathers of Irish, Celtic style of Newfoundland
traditional music. Ralph and the Sons of Erin took music from the kitchen and
put it on the stage.
Ralph
has remained the leader of the Sons of Erin for the past 50 years. We must also
recognize Ralph's other contribution to developing and promoting the next
generation of traditional Newfoundland musicians through his entrepreneurship
with his owning and operating Erin's Pub for nearly three decades that saw
hundreds of musicians entertaining and developing their talents. His venture
helped launch the careers of many traditional Newfoundland musicians such as
Great Big Sea, Shanneyganock, The Irish Descendants and Rum Ragged, to name a
few. His love of music and love for Newfoundland continues as Ralph continues to
entertain and serve as a music ambassador.
I ask
all Members in this House to join me in congratulating and thanking Ralph for
his years of dedicated service to the music industry and to our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to recognize all participants and volunteers involved in the 31st annual
Peace Poster Contest. On November 15, the Bay Roberts Lions Club celebrated
eight young artists from All Hallows Elementary in North River, Amalgamated
Academy in Bay Roberts, Holy Redeemer Elementary in Spaniard's Bay and St.
Peter's Elementary in Upper Island Cove.
Approximately 180 students from grades six to eight participated in creating a
poster to represent the theme “Kindness Matters” for the annual Lions Club
International Peace Poster Contest. Judges, Lion Ivy Pynn, who is also the Peace
Poster chair, and teachers Corey Morgan and Robyn Newhook had the difficult task
of selecting one top poster and one honourable mention poster from each of the
four schools.
The four
winning posters created by Jessica Smith, Jane Margaret Evely, Kassy Keats and
Lauren Foley will advance to the district level contest on November 22 at 2:30
p.m. in St. John's, hosted by the Waterford Hospital Lions Club.
Mr.
Speaker, it certainly was a wonderful event and dinner to honour all involved. A
special thank you the Bay Roberts Lions club and congratulations to all of our
students. Keep up the great work. We are proud of you.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to extend congratulations to the Father Michael Francis Hayes
Council #7127 Knights of Columbus in Harbour Breton who recently celebrated
their 40th anniversary. Formed on June 4, 1978, the council recognized the
tremendous dedication of members that are still on their roster today achieved
the 40th milestone as well.
I
commend Knights Robert Coady, Roland Rogers, John George, Edward Whittle, Thomas
Cox, Raymond Hynes Junior and E. J. Gale for their outstanding citizenship and
commitment to improving the lives of everyone in their community.
Today, I
would also like to throw a special bouquet to Brother David Drake for achieving
the distinct honour of Knight of the Year in recognition for his significant
role in their service program and involvement in all aspects of the council.
Hats off
to Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hickey who received accolades for serving as an
inspiration to the council and the community. We thank them and every Knight
wholeheartedly for their activities and giving freely of their time and talents
to ensure the success of council programs.
I ask
that all hon. Members join me in wishing the Father Michael Hayes Council a very
happy 40th anniversary and thanking these dedicated Knights for such outstanding
service. I encourage them to keep put the fantastic work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize Parsons & Sons Transportation, a business in my district
whose spirit of giving has reached global proportions. In February of this year,
Zainab Jerrett of the We Care Foundation approached Parsons about purchasing a
second-hand school bus to donate to the children living in Nigeria.
Terry
Parsons, one of the owners, was quick to let the We Care Foundation know that
they didn't need to purchase a bus, because he was willing to donate one. It was
a no-brainer, Terry said.
In
addition to the bus, Parsons & Sons went a step further and initiated the
collection of books, clothing and school supplies. The outpouring of support for
this endeavour was incredible.
The bus
and the supplies were shipped to Nigeria in June of this year. A second vehicle
also made the journey because all the donated items could not fit on the bus.
Mr.
Speaker, this is such an inspiring story and I commend Terry and Scott Parsons,
staff members Kim Hewlett and Krista Pitcher, as well as everyone who
contributed to the fantastic gesture of kindness and generosity.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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, Mr. Speaker.
I am
delighted to recognize an organization that works tirelessly to serve the
community. The Gathering Place was recently inducted into the Duke of Edinburgh
Hall of Fame honouring exceptional volunteers.
As a
non-profit community service centre that provides help and social supports to
those who are homeless or precariously housed, The Gathering Place has
approximately 2,000 guests.
With
over 1,000 volunteers annually, the wide-ranging roles that volunteers fill is
truly incredible: everything from assisting in cooking and serving meals, to
running a clothing boutique, hair salon and computer room, to providing
professional services including medial and dental clinics and counselling.
Nominees for the Hall of Fame were assessed on criteria including role, impact,
reach, engagement and inspiration.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in thanking The Gathering Place, including executive
director Joanne Thompson, the board, the staff, and the incredible volunteers
for all they do for the community and congratulating them on induction into the
Duke of Edinburgh Hall of Fame.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize November as National Adoption Awareness
Month.
This
month provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the care and commitment of
adoptive families throughout our province. Families who choose adoption are
making a life-changing decision that will create a meaningful difference in the
lives of all those involved.
It's
true what they say: Adopting one child won't change the world, but for that
child the world will change.
During
this month, there is also a need to remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that
there are children, teens and sibling groups in our province who are ready to
share their love, hopes and dreams with a permanent family.
As a
government, we are committed to strengthening the adoption process with an
additional investment of $395,000 over two years for dedicated resources to
ensure children and youth waiting to be adopted are matched with adoptive
families that will help to nurture their growth and development.
I invite
my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in celebrating the gift of adoption,
acknowledging the many families created through adoption and thanking the
individuals who have opened their hearts and provided a forever home for
children of all ages.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I join the government in recognizing National Adoption Awareness
Month, and I too wish to celebrate families who have been joined through
adopted.
Mr.
Speaker, adoption is a special life-changing gift which matches loving and
caring families with children who are often in need of a permanent family.
Adoption provides children with much more than just a home. It provides them
with a loving family environment to grow up in where children can flourish and
attain their hopes and dreams.
I'd also
like to take a moment to thank the social workers within the adoption services
program for their continued efforts and diligence in supporting children and
youth who have been adopted or who are awaiting adoption within our province.
Keep up the fabulous work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the statement. I'm very pleased to join with government
in recognizing National Adoption Awareness Month. It is so important to
recognize the so many adoptive parents around the province for their
contributions to the lives of children; and many of whom just don't take a
single child, but sometimes take siblings as well, keeping children together.
And I'm very pleased to see that the resources have been directed to address the
backlog that was occurring in the system.
Thank
you very much, 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, what a pleasure
it is to inform this House of yet another step forward for our Mistaken Point
World Heritage Site as it continues its upward arc of national and international
prominence. Just days ago, Mr. Speaker, a significant partnership was featured
between our unique, provincially-owned and managed World Heritage Site and the
Royal Ontario Museum.
The
world-renowned ROM, or Royal Ontario Museum, receives close to one million
visitors per year. When complete in 2021, the museum's permanent 10,000-square
foot Dawn of Life gallery will feature four Canadian UNESCO World Heritage
Sites, including a detailed exhibit and mould from Newfoundland and Labrador's
own Mistaken Point.
Mr.
Speaker, our government commits $470,000 each and every year to staffing for
Mistaken Point. This year we also provided $40,000 for cutting edge provincial
research activity, on top of $35,000 a year for operational supports.
We
recently installed a full-time on-site manager to oversee the work of several
professional natural history interpreters, as well as several local student
placements, to assist in the interpretation. We also provide supports to the
not-for-profit Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated and their Edge of
Avalon Interpretive Centre. This group, Mr. Speaker, receives $15,000 annually
for operational support funding.
My
department has also entered into a long-term lease for office and exhibit space
at the centre, and from this not-for-profit group, valued at $26,000 annually,
which goes directly to Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated. More
recently, and at their request, I granted authority to the group to charge an
admission fee to visitors for access to the provincial site, with all revenues
retained by them, to use as they see fit. This is a very unique arrangement and
one that the Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated certainly
appreciates, with $40,000 in new revenue made available this year alone.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, due to its great success, there have been calls to increase visitation
to the site. We all recognize that specific commitments were made to UNESCO,
prior to the designation, that would limit the number of visitors on the site
each year.
This is
a very fragile site and this was acknowledged that it must be preserved or the
World Heritage designation could be removed.
In
preparing the nomination package and the site management plan for review by
UNESCO, some years ago the government of the day committed that the number of
tours and tourists visiting the site will be limited by this reality. Again,
failure to maintain this promise, that was made years ago, could now result in
Mistaken Point losing its World Heritage designation.
So, Mr.
Speaker, while we applaud the ongoing success of promoting Mistaken Point to the
world, and we shall continue to do so, we do so with the greatest of care to
protect this priceless, timeless treasure for us all, for generations to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are
very aware of the tremendous beauty and uniqueness of Mistaken Point World
Heritage Site, and we are certainly pleased to see it recognized in this
partnership between the site and the Royal Ontario Museum.
The
Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage group, and the amazing people of the region,
have worked very hard to preserve and promote this site, but they've also
struggled. It's unfortunate that the group has been forced to hold raffles and
dinners to keep the interpretation centre, which is the gateway to this
incredible site, operational.
Mr.
Speaker, Mistaken Point received UNESCO designation in 2016, and it is
unfortunate that the government has not seized the opportunity over the past two
years to not only protect the Mistaken Point fossils, but to also actively
promote the site to drive economic development in the region and the province.
The
minister is undoubtedly aware of the significant value that UNESCO sites can
bring to a region, as there are a number on West Coast and in Labrador. Mistaken
Point is the only site in Eastern Newfoundland to be granted UNESCO status, and
is also the only provincially managed UNESCO site in the province.
The
circumstance of inadequate support and management has been an issue –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
– which we have raised many times.
I
encourage the minister to get informed about what is actually happening at the
site and, if he has not already visited Mistaken Point, he really should.
I also
encourage all residents to take opportunity to explore Mistaken Point, in
Portugal Cove South, our province's newest UNESCO World Heritage Site.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. There's no doubt that
Mistaken Point is a very special site that must be shared while being protected.
I congratulate the Mistaken Point and Cape Race Heritage Society on the great
work that it does, and I congratulate them on obtaining a new revenue source.
But I have to point out to the minister the reason they requested permission to
charge admission was that they didn't have enough money to run the centre the
way they knew it needed to be run to handle tourists and to do their part to
protect the site.
I
suggest the minister fully evaluate how much money the group needs and provide
it directly so there will be no more question about whether this World Heritage
Site is being properly developed and protected, and the people who are doing
this work do not have to worry about the future.
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. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of TCII, and concerns the mistaken point of a different kind.
On May 7, 2018, the minister stood on the site of future Canopy Growth facility
with a sod-turning shovel.
I ask
the minister: Did you know, at that time, who owned the land that you were
digging?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
quite pleased to be involved with the company, Canopy Growth, in terms of what
they're doing here in St. John's, and that's creating jobs and making
significant investment. They're using all their own capital to do so. In return,
as they increase their sales, and they produce here in this province, every
dollar that's sold, the taxpayer of this province will get at least double that,
and that's quite significant.
I'm also
quite pleased today to see that BeeHigh Vital Elements of Corner Brook has been
able to achieve a production licence for cultivating cannabis, so there is more
activity happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador as we build and grow our
cannabis industry here in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Let the record show that the
minister has chosen to take refuge in the Standing Orders that don't require him
to answer a question.
I ask
the minister: Did the numbered company 80521 NL Ltd. own the land you stood on
at the time of you wielded your shovel?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
the private business dealings of companies and business in the community in
Newfoundland and Labrador, that is between those private businesses. When it
comes to any deal that we do as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, our
deal and our contract is clearly with Canopy Growth Corporation. When it comes
to achieving a production licence, Health Canada will go through the appropriate
checks and balances for security.
What the
Member opposite is insinuating is that there is something untoward, or that
there's something happening between a publicly traded company and the private
business sector out there in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Can the minister state to the
House whether the numbered company purchased the land only after Canopy had
selected the land as the site of the production facility, and if he does not
know the answer to that question does he think that he should know?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, these are
private business matters between a publicly traded company and another entity
outside of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
When it
comes to our agreement with Canopy, they have agreed to set up 145 jobs at a
production facility here in the province and they will only receive a reduced
remittance on eligible cost; so, only things that are deemed eligible. If they
do not own the land, then that is not eligible. Leasing cost is not eligible. If
they do not own their property at the end of the day, then those would not be
eligible costs to be eligible for their investment.
So,
those are the types of things. All the risk here is squarely with the company.
What's come out of the Member opposite, he's raised questions about the people
breaking the law, about the business community breaking the law. If he has some
sort of evidence to state that, then he should make those matters known publicly
and take them to the RCMP.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The minister will be well
aware that the province entered a comprehensive business agreement with Canopy
Growth on December 7, 2017. Schedule A states the land for the facility be
purchased within 90 days of December 7. Canopy did not purchase land but are
leasing it from the numbered company.
I ask
the minister. Did the government formally excuse Canopy Growth from compliance
with the 90-day purchase requirement of the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly when we entered into the agreement on December 7, 2017, there was
clearly an outlined schedule and time and milestones that would be met, but we
did receive a request, in writing, in May for the schedule to be adjusted based
on the fact that in July of 2017 it was anticipated that cannabis would become
legal at that time. Also site development, there was extra excavation, a lot of
granite in particular in the White Hills that would have delayed a bit of the
construction work, some of the permitting that needed to take place with the
city in terms of their land and issuance.
But what
we have done is we have stated from a milestone that their cannabis production
facility would be open in October of 2019, as I said in this House previously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I take it the minister is
confirming that Canopy did indeed violate the 90-day provision of the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying
is that we have entered into an agreement with Canopy to produce and supply
8,000 kilograms of cannabis on an annual basis. They are supplying us with
cannabis. Our retailers are in far better shape than some of the other retailers
across the country, where places like New Brunswick has had to close down
upwards of half their stores. Quebec had to go to a point where they were only
open three days a week.
One
thing that I have been saying all along is that we are open for business and
that we are working with businesses here in Newfoundland and Labrador that want
to operate here and grow and expand and create jobs and investment here.
I don't
know what the Member opposite would be looking at doing. I guess the Member
opposite would prefer the strategy that was implemented in their ferry
replacement strategy, building them in Romania.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Three answers ago, if that is
how they are going to be styled –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Three answers ago if that is
how they are to be styled, the minister alluded to eligible expenditures defined
in the agreement as he knows. There are types of expenditures therein set out
which would qualify for the $40 million subsidy.
Would
the minister confirm that direct construction costs and direct land acquisition
costs are eligible expenditures?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, in terms of any type of reduced remittance that's available, Canopy Growth
Corporation has agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars and they would be
eligible to receive up to $40 million in reduced remittances only on eligible
cost. So they have to sell, in Newfoundland and Labrador, their product and they
will get revenue from that. But for every dollar that they sell here in this
province, we will get more than that, the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayer,
plus we also get excise tax and the HST.
So
having a production facility here and the jobs and the benefits are quite
significant, because it does return revenue to the provincial Treasury. That's
something that we'll continue to do, to attract those types of businesses.
Leasing
costs are not eligible, Mr. Speaker. So if somebody doesn't own the land, then
it's not eligible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the minister for confirming something useful in that last answer.
The
agreement between the province and Canopy specifies that eligible expenditures
must be incurred by Canopy and payable to a company that is arm's-length to
Canopy; clause 3.6.
I ask
the minister: How can he ensure compliance with the arm's-length requirement of
the agreement without knowing the identity of the shareholders of the numbered
company?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite keeps bringing up a numbered company, but the contract that we have is
with Canopy Growth Corporation, and that is what the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador is doing with business, and that is who Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador is doing business with: Canopy Growth Corporation.
So what
we do, is we have protections placed in our contract, and I am very pleased of
the diligent work that our staff has done on this, the due diligence, and to
ensure that we are getting a return to our Treasury, the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
All the
risk is with the company, not with the taxpayers of this province. We don't have
to issue a cheque, there is no cash infusion to the company, so therefore if the
company is not able to live up to their agreements, all the risk settles with
them.
What I
can say is that we have an audit process put in place and we have adequate
protections to ensure that all steps are being followed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I ask the minister: Is it not true that Canopy is incurring construction costs,
and is it not true that clause 3.6 requires that for expenditures to be eligible
for government money, they can only be incurred with respect to an arm's-length
corporation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And as I
said, we have an audit process that's put in place to determine exactly which
costs would be eligible. As the building is still under construction and this
process is still taking place, until Health Canada provides them with a
production licence and a sales licence here within the province, then these are
all matters that the Member opposite is asking me to make a determination on
that.
We have
the protections in the contract to ensure that they will only be remunerated for
any eligible cost. What I can say is that the City of St. John's is going to be
getting municipal tax now because of this. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune wanted us to ensure that the City of St. John's wouldn't get any municipal
tax, that Crown land would be given for a dollar under the EDGE Program and
more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Is the minister telling the
House that he is relying upon auditors to guarantee the arm's-length nature of
the relationship between Canopy and the numbered company and to know who the
shareholders are, but he does not need to know?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth
Corporation is a publicly traded company. It has shareholders. It has people who
are majority shareholders, and people who are minority shareholders. There could
be any number of people that would be buying shares at Canopy Growth Corporation
from day to day to day.
What I
can say is that we have a very clear contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, as
we do with Biome, and as we will with any other production facility that we
would enter into in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government made the decision
that we would be a leader in the cannabis industry, that we would attract those
businesses here to our province. We are doing so, we are creating jobs here, and
we have adequate securities and protections put in place to protect us. And what
we have done is that we've made sure that no tax dollars are being put at risk
here, and all the risk are with those companies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I put it to the minister that
under this agreement with Canopy he has not only the right, but the duty to
inform himself, as a prudent and responsible steward of public money, as to the
identity of the shareholders of the numbered company.
When
will the minister enforce this agreement and act on his duty to inform the
taxpayer?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, we have no
relationship, the provincial government, with this numbered company, but the
Member opposite continues questioning. So our contract is with Canopy Growth
Corporation, and we will determine the eligible expenses and costs that are
eligible for recoupment. We have auditors and we have the adequate protection
within our contract to do so.
So we
have a good relationship with this company, and we anticipate having a good
relationship with Biome and any other companies that want to set up cannabis
production facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are creating jobs for
our province, and they are creating retail jobs all across Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I don't
know what the Member opposite is in particular wanting to see here. But when it
comes to private business matters, they are done with private business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What preventive measures were
implemented last week prior to the forecasted most intense storm on the province
for our offshore oil production vessels?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we
all know, we did have a rather intense weather event last Thursday, and I'm
pleased to report to this House that everyone was safe and there were no major
incidents of safety occurring offshore.
As
Members opposite know, and people in the province know, C-NLOPB ensures that
through their operating licence that every single operator is required to have a
safety and environmental protection plan, and it is under that plan that they
would have been prepared for the storm on Thursday, Mr. Speaker.
I can
report that on Thursday of last week all operators offshore did shut in because
of the storm and that I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure there are
more questions to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder
if the minister could advise was there an emergency disconnect or a controlled
disconnect by the operators.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Certainly, I will undertake
to discuss that with C-NLOPB, what type of disconnect it was. The storm was
intense, Mr. Speaker. There are safety and environmental protection plans that
each operator must have and they were exercised under that plan. It was probably
one of the most intense storms we've seen offshore.
We were
constantly – I can tell you – from this government's perspective, I was in
constant contact with C-NLOPB all throughout Thursday and into Friday to ensure
the safety of our workforce and I'm pleased to say that was the case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this weather pattern wasn't a surprise. We knew it was coming and it
was, back then, alleged to be one of the most intense storms on the planet. So,
I don't understand why the minister can't say whether it was an emergency
disconnect or a controlled disconnect.
I'll ask
the minister: Were the offshore production vessels ordered to disconnect by the
C-NLOPB prior to the forecasted winds and high seas arriving, which were
forecasted and everybody was aware of it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite would be fully aware that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board exercises that requirement under the Atlantic Accord
act. There is a chief safety officer. There is a chief conservation officer.
Even in the act, it says the chief safety officer overrides the board. It
overrides the conservation officer as well, Mr. Speaker.
It is
his responsibility to ensure that everything under the safety and environmental
protection plan is enacted and I am sure that he would be on that all of last
week and into, of course, this week with the instance of the oil spill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, when the oil spill occurred the seas were too rough to contain the
spill or even to determine how big the spill was.
I ask
the minister. Who issued the order or permitted to allow Husky SeaRose FPSO to
reconnect and to restart production even when the most intense storm on the
planet was ongoing?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
again say that the chief conservation officer ensures that each operator has a
safety and environmental protection plan that they must follow. Part of the
investigation of this oil spill will be to determine if protocols were followed
and if they were followed, what do we need to do to ensure this type of an
incident does not occur again.
The
chief conservation officer, the chief safety officer would have been on top of
both of these activities late last week. I can inform the House, as I did the
Member opposite, they were involved all weekend long addressing the concerns
around the oil spill, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the minister could advise us: Did C-NLOPB make you aware
that connections by Husky in record high winds and sea conditions were approved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
Thursday, I did reach out to C-NLOPB to make sure that we were in a good
position, people were safe offshore, that things were okay looking at the
weather forecast and looking at what was happening.
C-NLOPB
was obviously in constant contact with the operators and ensuring that the
operators were operating, were shut in and operating as safely as possible, Mr.
Speaker. The chief safety officer under the act is responsible for safety. He
was completely involved. The chief conservation officer, of course, is
responsible for environmental protection and they are continuing to work today,
especially in light of the oil spill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder
if the minister could advise: Was the Nalcor CEO or any of the officials with
Nalcor notified or involved with the discussions during this period?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I could
undertake to find out if Nalcor's CEO was involved. I can tell you that the
safety officer was involved with C-NLOPB. They were talking to the operators
throughout this entire process all throughout last week.
As a
matter of fact, everyday, Mr. Speaker, the chief safety officer is in contact
with the offshore in making sure that things are progressing as they must do.
The chief conservation officer has been very much engaged since there has been
an oil spill as of Friday, but I can undertake to determine whether or not
Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas Co. was advised.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Terra Nova FPSO did not attempt to reconnect in high seas, yet the SeaRose did.
I ask
the minister: Has the C-NLOPB explained the different approach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
had that conversation with C-NLOPB to determine under whose direction and
authority the restart would happen. It is under their plans, the safety and
environmental protection plans that these restarts do occur. And I can say that
it will be part of the investigation as to whether or not the right protocols
were followed and whether or not there should be different protocols.
Mr.
Speaker, this government is monitoring two things. First of all, we're
monitoring what's occurred with the oil spill of last Friday; and (b), ensuring
that we are understanding what actions are being taken, and that action is
underway. But we're also monitoring the response by C-NLOPB.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand the monitoring and reviewing and investigating, but these are live
activities that are happening today off our coast.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Have you spoke with the senior managers of the two
companies in regard to why one company took action to reconnect in what was
described as the hardest environment on the planet at the particular time and
why another company did not? What's the C-NLOPB's recommendation? Why did they
allow that to happen?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
spoken with both operators, and the SeaRose was getting ready to – or was
preparing to recommence operations on Friday following their safety and
environmental protection plan protocols, Mr. Speaker, as I've said to this House
already.
The
question is, in the investigation, whether or not the right protocols were
followed, and whether or not we need to change those protocols. One was ready to
recommence, they did. Terra Nova was not quite ready to commence, and once this
occurred, of course, they have not yet recommenced.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
recognize the minister spoke to the protocols that would be in place for any of
the operators.
What
feedback she's gotten back from the C-NLOPB in regard to the disconnection and
restarting production after a harsh weather shutdown. Were they following the
protocols at the time, or is there any clear indication that they infringed on
standard protocols?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
the investigation that will very much have to incur in this incidence will
occur. And I can assure the Members of this House and I can assure the people of
this province, we will be monitoring the actions of C-NLOPB, the review of this
particular incidence and how we can improve upon.
As I've
said before in this House, the safety and environmental protection are paramount
in our offshore. They are not to be compromised in any way, in any shape, at any
time. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite that we'll be
following through on this investigation to make sure everything that can be done
to avoid this in the future, will be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I share her concern that what
should be done will be done, but if protocols were in place they're not
followed. That's a huge concern. When it happens it happens, Mr. Speaker.
In the
C-NLOPB release, they reference next steps: “carefully review Husky Energy's
ongoing response, the company's investigation report when ready and its
Operations Authorization in light of this incident and the one last year
involving the near miss of an iceberg with the SeaRose FPSO.”
I ask
the minister: This is the second serious incident. What's she going to do to
ensure that companies like these are held accountable? The last time there was
no sanction against Husky. So what's she going to do here and now to make sure
that the safety of people offshore are protected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
said repeatedly, safety and environmental protection is paramount. We have a
joint board, C-NLOPB, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board,
that has, under the Accord Act, the responsibility. They have a chief safety
officer, they have a chief conservation officer. They are the group that
actually approved the operating licence of the operators offshore.
We are
going to make sure that the investigation is thorough, as a government, and I'll
be talking to my colleague, obviously, federally as well on this, making sure
the investigation is thorough. There are many things that can occur under the
review process, but let's make sure first of all that we contain this oil spill
today, and then get to the investigation as to why it occurred and how can we
prevent it in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, there was
reference to 250,000 litres that was dispersed and there's no indication yet, my
understanding, of whether the leak has stopped. There's some reference to sheens
on the water and where that would be.
I ask
the minister: Could she give an update on what oil – believed to this point –
has been released, and what operations are underway to contain it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you for the question;
it's an important one.
Multiple
flyovers happened over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, to see the extent of the spill.
It was farther away from the South White Rose extension, therefore it indicated
– and there is no reason not to believe that the oil spill had been what they
call a batch spill, meaning an instantaneous spill that had stopped.
I can
report that today's flyover showed no sheen, meaning it is either dissipated or
evaporated. That means there was no sheen on the water.
So there
are multiple vessels now in the area checking on wildlife, Mr. Speaker. The ROV,
the remotely operated vehicle has gone, is now proceeding underwater to check
the flow lines and to determine the extent of what happened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, that's
speculation at this point.
Last
Friday, Husky Energy reported a spill of 250,000 litres at its SeaRose FPSO,
with possibly more leaking as we speak. Details about the cause and full extent
of damage are still not available, and we are forced to rely on information
provided by the company itself.
Australia and Norway know, we know, self-regulation by industry does not work.
Surely, the Premier knows that too.
I ask
the Premier: How much more will it take before he acts to establish an
independent offshore safety and environmental authority?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to stand on this question today because what happened on Friday is a serious
incident. It's the environmental concern, safety. I also want to say that the
minister and department have done a good job over the weekend keeping in touch
with C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I also want to say that, as
the minister has already mentioned, there is an ROV in place right now to
determine if indeed this leak has stopped. But that is done with an independent
observer on the FPSO, the SeaRose. So there's an independent observer out there.
This is not left to the corporation; this is not left to the company. So this
information will come up, will be reviewed by the independent environmental
officer that is currently on the FPSO.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, last spring a
near-miss iceberg incident on Husky Energy's SeaRose FPSO, and now during the
worst storm since the 1982 Ocean Ranger disaster Husky discovers the largest
spill in our history while attempting to restart pumping in dangerous conditions
that are still so bad we can't even assess the spill. It's just happening now.
These
incidents clearly show that Husky's bottom line has been far more important to
them than worker safety and environmental protection.
I ask
the Premier: Will he begin negotiations with his federal counterparts to create
an independent offshore safety and environmental authority with the power to
ensure that oil companies place environmental and worker safety above profits?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
can tell you now about this government, and indeed the federal government as
well, that safety offshore is a priority. Mr. Speaker, we'll say that the Hebron
production platform is currently producing right now, and they are operating
guidelines, as the minister has just said. So there will an investigation that
will be done into what happened on Friday.
Mr.
Speaker, we understand, and I've said that this is a priority for us, they've
been monitoring this on this weekend, there are independent groups involved as
we speak right now, as is DFO, Environment Canada, Husky themselves and the
Canadian Wildlife Services. They're all involved in monitoring of what happened
there on Friday.
So, I'd
say to the Members opposite, let's get the investigation done. We'll then see
why this happened and when it happened, Mr. Speaker, but first and foremost the
minister and the department and the people at C-NLOPB, their primary concern
today is making sure that safety is in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Since
December 2010, we have been repeatedly calling for an independent offshore
safety authority, similar to agencies found in Norway and Australia. It is the
only recommendation from Justice Robert Wells, Offshore Helicopter Safety
Inquiry which has not yet been implemented.
I ask
the Premier. Why does he continue to listen to the oil industry and not the
experts on safety and environmental protection?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, this is a very
important question and I want the people of the province to understand that
under the Accord Act there is a role for a chief safety officer, whose
recommendations are paramount. They're paramount to the board. They're paramount
to the chief conservation officer, Mr. Speaker.
So, in
effect, we have a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, a
jointly controlled board, federal and provincial government that is controlled
by an independent board of directors and, plus, we have a chief safety officer
within that board whose direction is paramount.
I say to
the Member opposite, in some ways, that is the case already. But I will say
this, what is needed to be done in our offshore will be done to ensure safety
and environmental protection.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we
believe the C-NLOPB is not the best agency to protect offshore environmental and
workers safety because it's in conflict of interest, it does have regulatory
powers over the industry that it is not fully exercising.
I ask
the Premier: Will he immediately work with his federal counterparts to direct
the C-NLOPB to tighten regulations regarding operations under potentially
dangerous conditions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I think the Member opposite
in her preamble was talking about the promotion of the industry. I can assure
the people of the province that C-NLOPB is not designed to promote the industry.
They're designed to regulate the industry. I wanted to make sure the people of
the province understood that, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say that whatever needs to be done, coming out of this review and investigation,
will be done. Obviously, we're very concerned about this environmental spill,
this oil spill. We are overly concerned I would say about continuing worker
safety, Mr. Speaker. So we will take this investigation very seriously and look
to improve regulation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to bring forward legislation to require every privately held numbered
company operating in the province that does business with provincial government
to disclose the identities of the significant shareholders in that company.
This
motion, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
resolution just read out by my colleague will be the one that will be debated on
Wednesday, Private Members' Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 11(1) I hereby give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, November 20.
Thank
you.
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 St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
That was
an interesting rising of three at the same time – quick on my feet.
Here are
the reasons for this petition: Our licensed child care system is a patchwork of
private, for-profit centres – 70 per cent of all centres – non-profit,
community-based centres and family daycare, plus a small number of education-
and workplace-based centres.
It is
nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province. Affordable, licensed
child care is often in short supply in rural parts of the province. Even in St.
John's there are long wait-lists for quality child care programs.
Child
care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Studies show
that high-quality child care and early childhood education programs result in
better cogitative, language and numeracy skills. They help economically and
disadvantaged children transition to school on the same level as other children.
For
every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50 to
$2.78 – many studies including TD Economics.
Investing in child care creates jobs; $1 million invested in child care would
create 40 jobs, more than in any other sector.
A
gender-based analysis of the provincial budget would have indicated the need for
a public child care program as a key way to close the wage gap between women and
men in this province.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a
gradual transition to a universal, regulated, and publicly funded and fully
accessible child care and after school care program.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very happy to present this petition on behalf of people who
actually live here in St. John's.
Child
care is one of the most important things that we can do as legislators here in
this House of Assembly, making sure that child care is available for the
children in our province. The need for having a child care publicly regulated, a
fully operative child care program is really pointed out here in St. John's
actually over the past week.
Just
imagine if kindergarten children found out last week that at the end of the
month there's no place for them to go to kindergarten because a lease has run
out and they couldn't go to kindergarten? We'd be incensed. Well, there's no
difference between children needing child care and children who are in our
school system beginning with kindergarten.
Yet,
what happened here in St. John's this week is just an example of how
unsatisfactory our child care system is. The fact that a child care operator has
found out a lease is running out, they don't have a place to operate any more.
This is unacceptable.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response,
please.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of government and the significant
contributions that we've made to early childhood development over the last three
years.
Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact, I just got back from Happy Valley-Goose Bay on
Friday, where we are working with an organization there. We've just invested
over $900,000 in child care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and these are
announcements we're making across the province. We just recently made an
announcement in Port aux Basques. We are actually making a significant
contribution to child care.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, our government has committed an additional $2
million in the annual funding for the Child Care Subsidy Program. That's for
this year.
Mr.
Speaker, we, as well, are ahead of the target for Newfoundland for our new
projected spaces through the Child Care Capacity Initiative with 425 new spaces
as of April 1, 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, in addition to that, it's anticipated with the change that we've made
with regard to the net family income threshold from $27,000 to $35,000, that an
additional 100 families will have full subsidy or partial subsidy.
So we're
making a significant investment into early childhood development, as well as
educating our early childhood educators and making them professionals. So we are
significantly making the change in child care within this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, damage to
valuable farmlands continue to occur. This is hampering the province's need to
expand our food security and produce more food locally.
This
damage is mostly due to individuals using ATVs and other motor vehicles.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to strengthen the
Petty Trespass Act and make direct
reference to agricultural properties, increasing fines and power to courts so as
they can seize offending vehicles and assign punitive damages to be awarded to
the property owner.
Mr.
Speaker, I spent the morning, prior to coming in here, driving through the
Goulds speaking to various agricultural producers who continually experience
damage to their properties by such, I guess, uncaring individuals who are
driving ATVs and other recreational vehicles.
What
happens is they look at an open, green field as a great place to try out a new
set of tires, but in doing that they're often destroying the farmer's crop. In
many cases, there's up to 35 to 40 per cent damage on a field and it causes the
farmer to lose that crop because, obviously, that has to be repaired before we
can harvest it.
I,
fortunately, have never had that damage, but I am quite aware of individual
farmers who, not seeing the damage prior to the hay growing, they go in there
with a $100,000 piece of machinery and pick up a rock the size of a small
suitcase. Not only does it damage the machinery, but it puts the harvest in
throes and puts the farmer behind.
We need
to give the courts and peace officers more power. Often they'll show up to
arrest these individuals or press charges and they'll basically have to let them
go because, obviously, a farmer can't put a fence around every field he owns,
and signage quite often gets ripped down.
I think
we need to make the whole province aware that if it's a field, it's agricultural
property. It's their food supply, they got to respect it, and if they don't,
they pay for it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
petition the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS
the Bay d'Espoir Highway and its branch roads, Routes 360, 361, 362, 363, 364
and 365, have become overcome with very dangerous roadside alder growth; and
WHEREAS
the Coast of Bays region is a very busy area with a high volume of industrial
traffic for aquaculture, the fishery and hydroelectricity; and
WHEREAS
the region has a transient workforce that requires workers to travel the highway
at early morning hours and late at night, often in foggy, dangerous weather
conditions with no cell coverage; and
WHEREAS
there have been weekly incidents of moose accidents in the region this year,
some very serious, and daily near misses; and
WHEREAS
all residents are very concerned and worried to drive the highway due to fear of
a moose accident; and
WHEREAS
every effort should and must be made to protect the safety of residents and
reduce unnecessary road hazards for travellers;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
Mr.
Speaker, I have here another four pages of signatures from the community of
Conne River. I've submitted already on behalf of communities from Pool's Cove
and Bay d'Espoir, and I have petitions from every community in the district.
This is
a grave concern for each and every resident of the Coast of Bays region. As well
as each and every business entity, I would say, from Grand Falls and Gander that
service the area and have to come down the Coast of Bays region on a regular
basis in their vehicles to service the area, they too have a grave fear.
In fact,
I would venture to say it's probably going to impact the amount of shopping that
happens in Central Newfoundland from residents of my district this Christmas
because people are terrified of travelling the roads. It has gone beyond the
point of there are alders, and there are alders everywhere in the province,
we'll get to them when we get to it.
The
problem is very, very serious, Mr. Speaker. You're driving along the road, the
road is here, the moose jumps out and he's right on you. You can put your hand
out and touch the alders, and it goes on for kilometres and kilometres and
kilometres.
We
really need this government to recognize that it's a serious problem, to be
responsible and take preventative action before we have a fatality that is
totally unnecessary and totally avoidable if this government would just provide
the resources that are required to provide safety for the travellers of the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a
time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels
of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased
bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and
medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are
continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities
Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to
further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizens
of our province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to
mitigate rates, they've provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to do
so.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the potential
options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal
with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to
the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential
suggestions for improvement.
Mr.
Speaker, today I have signatures from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Pouch Cove, Logy
Bay, Paradise and Bay Roberts. We also have people from Calvert, Harbour Breton,
Badger's Quay, Wesleyville, Valleyfield, Twillingate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
So, Mr. Speaker, there's certainly a mixture of signatures from all throughout
the province, as has been standard with all of these petitions. And, again, I
will say this is not about blaming the current administration for the situation
that we have. That's why we have the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, to find out exactly
what happened.
I think
a lot of us are very disturbed by some of the things that are coming out. Some
of us are, perhaps, a little more than just disturbed. Some of us are very
angry, including yours truly; but, at the end of the day, we know that there are
going to be significant hit to ratepayers with the cost of electricity, unless
there's something done to prevent that.
While
the government has come out and said that ratepayers are not going to have to
pay for it, taxpayers aren't going to have to pay for it, that all sounds great.
If there was a magic wand and we can all make it all go away, it would be
wonderful, but that's not reality and people want to understand exactly what
government plans to do to help mitigate power rates. That's what they want to
know, and that's what they're calling for in this petition is a detailed plan,
other than: trust us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 36.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 36, An Act
To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, be now read a
third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
It is
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 (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 36)
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 To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation
Act No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitle, An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 39, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 39, and that the said
bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” carried. (Bill 39)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Housing Corporation Act, Bill 40, and I further move that the said
bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act, Bill 40, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,”
carried. (Bill 40)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
Tomorrow?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 38.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today we
are debating Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements of Public
Bodies – I move, seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of
Public Bodies.” (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This act
will improve government's access to workforce- and compensation-related
information from our agencies, boards and commissions. We've been working with
our ABCs on finding efficiencies and bringing about cost savings; however,
questions have arisen around whether they have the authority to release some of
the information to government and how such information should be treated under
ATIPP.
Mr.
Speaker, this can include situations where the information is considered to be
commercially sensitive or situations were personal information such as
retirement projections, we're asking for that information, and they've had some
concerns with that.
So, the
ATIPPA legislation was never intended to limit government's ability to access
information that is needed to inform sound policy decisions. This new
legislation will help ensure appropriate access to that information.
We've
heard from many of our ABCs that they wish to be open and transparent and to
work with government as we look to find efficiencies. This act ensures that we
have the ability to obtain timely and consistent information that's needed to
inform those decisions. This will help in meeting our commitment through
The Way Forward to achieving a more
efficient public service.
Mr.
Speaker, we are focused on attrition management in government. We've set targets
for our ABCs to achieve the same. This will allow us to work with them in
developing attrition planning through the ABCs as well.
This
legislation ensures access to not only compensation information, but also
information that's crucial for our understanding of circumstances that these
entities face with attrition targets such as retirement forecasting and current
attrition plans.
As the
Minister of Finance, I am responsible for managing the public Treasury and part
of that is having a complete picture of how public funds are used in both core
government as well as our agencies, boards and commissions. This legislation
will help in that regard.
Section
5 lays out information government will be able to access through this
legislation, which includes but is not limited to employment and related
agreements between the public body and its employees; compensation policies,
plans, guidelines, programs and reports relating to the public body; the current
and projected organizational structure and human resource requirements of the
public body; the current and projected retirement eligibility of employees.
This act
will allow government to access this information while maintaining the
confidentiality that this information is from public release. This is important,
Mr. Speaker, because the agencies, boards and commissions were concerned about
this. It does bear repeating, there has to be some level of protection, and that
level of protection will be guaranteed, Mr. Speaker.
Those
concerns that were raised by the ABCs about the information they're sharing,
whether it be commercially sensitive or whether it be about retirement plans of
some of their employees, Mr. Speaker, the legislation here will also ensure that
that information is looked at through the lens of ATIPP and the protection of
privacy when it relates to the release of information to the general public.
So these
changes will allow us access to the – for the purpose of planning and advising
on ways of reducing spending within our agencies, boards and commissions, but
the information will still fall under ATIPPA and anything that is commercially
sensitive would be protected as per ATIPPA.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect that our public bodies will
operate efficiently, as they expect government to operate efficiently. They
expect our public bodies to be accountable for the money they spend, as it is
the taxpayers' money.
Our
government will continue to work collaboratively and respectfully with our
agencies, boards and commissions to make improvements in these areas. This
legislation will enable government to work with public bodies on the
implementation of organizational and operational changes based on a full
understanding of the specific challenges that each organization is met with. The
legislation will strengthen the collective responsibility for government
departments and government entities to address the province's fiscal challenges
and to build an efficient and effective public sector.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to continuing effective dialogue with our agencies,
boards and commissions as we look for efficiencies with our partners, as we are
able to deliver on effective attrition plans, as we're able to lay out plans
working with our agencies, boards and commissions on organizational structures
and so on.
I look
forward to the debate in the House of Assembly and to answering any questions
that Members opposite may have.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister.
Perhaps
in the course of Committee stage – as I've been here, I think I picked up along
the way that something like 60 per cent of our spending, of government spending
is done by non-core government, by the ABCs. Perhaps the minister would be kind
enough to enlighten the House a little bit further with the details of that.
The
minister, I think, is at this point aware that the definition as to which ABCs
are caught up in the reach of the legislation would not catch a body like
Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has four shareholders
and is not a Crown corporation in the sense that it's set up by statute by the
province; it's actually a private corporation, incorporated under the federal
Corporations Act.
The
province does have, however, a 25 per cent shareholding in it. So it is
considered as a Crown corporation. I just raise for consideration of the
government whether an amendment might be needed to catch entities such as
Atlantic Lottery Corporation, which handle large amounts of money as we know,
and an amendment which was directed to catching entities considered to be Crown
corporations might do the job. I haven't thought this all the way through; it's
a drafting matter, but this could be considered by those responsible for
drafting.
At
section 10, I'd raise a question, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government is
concerned about being sued for anything done under this particular piece of
amending legislation, which basically seeks information. There may be a thought
process behind that, but I, for one, would be interested in knowing why the
concern to provide for no cause of action.
And
lastly, the particular amendment we're looking at here is concerned with
gathering information. I'm all in favour of that. Information is power, as the
minister knows. So there's nothing wrong with gathering information, but of
course it needs to be part of an integrated scheme for how the government is
going to impose fiscal discipline on that enormous sector of spending that
happens outside of core government, and we look forward to hearing more from him
about that.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to speak a few minutes to this bill. It's something that's necessary to put
in place to help us create policy within government, and it's something that
departments find necessary to develop policy, to develop bills like we're
debating here today.
You look
at ABCs, which make up the majority of what government actually is, you have
over 200; 80 per cent are salaries, the Finance Minister tells me – just think
about that. The biggest one by far, you would think, is the four health boards:
Eastern Health, Central Health, Western Health and Labrador Grenfell taking up
most of the salary. If you want to develop any sort of policy, let's say on
health care, you have to go to each one of those health authorities. Right now,
ATIPPA doesn't necessarily allow us to have that information.
So what
this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is actually allows us to clean up how we interact
with our ABCs and how government departments can communicate between them. We
are going to ensure that information provided by agencies, boards and
commissions will continue to be protected by the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 while
still being able to share information – be shared with relevant government
bodies.
We're
confirming the requirement for ABCs to provide the (inaudible) information in a
timely manner; provide the minister with the power to issue directive requiring
ABC to provide the information.
If you
think about the amount of legislation that's been put through this House in the
past three years, Mr. Speaker – we're on Bill 38 right now. I think in the first
session of this General Assembly we saw close to 70; the second session we saw
another 50 or 60 pieces of legislation come through, but often you see a rush to
get legislation in. A lot of that is the departments have to go back, research,
find out information and find proper information so that they put the best bill
forward, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of
times that's hindered by going through ABCs because of this access to
information and whether or not we can legally have access to that. So we're not
getting the most informed information possible.
You
think that the legislation that the House Leader has to deal with – and, right
now, we're looking at an influx of legislation coming in next week. The
departments have a hard time getting the information that they need. Justice has
a hard time then following up and making sure that everything is in order, the
bills are in order. We don't want to come to the floor of the House of Assembly
with a piece of legislation that we're going to have to come back in six months'
time and amend because we put in something wrong.
Mr.
Speaker, this is going to allow us to do a lot more work, better work, and it
helps us to create better policy. If you look at our
Way Forward plan, a number of different action items. When you're
developing policy, though, you want the best information from each area. If
you're doing something in health care, you want to make some major changes in
health care, you want to go speak – it's not just the department but it's the
health boards. The four different health boards need to talk to the departments
to determine what's best for our health care system and based on our old access
to information act, it's not working well for us right now.
Mr.
Speaker, a bit of a technical brief here: Nearly 80 per cent of salary and
benefit costs in the public service are incurred by ABCs, which I already
mentioned. Many ABCs have government structures that empower boards to establish
and oversee terms and conditions of employment.
Right
now, that's where we're seeing some of the challenges is getting those terms,
those conditions. Efforts have been ongoing with our agencies, boards and
commissions to find efficiencies and bring about cost savings. You think what we
were handed with, with the previous PC government, a $2.7 billion deficit and
when you're trying to find savings, 80 per cent of the salaries come from ABCs.
You want
to find as much efficiencies in those departments. Now, if we don't know, we
don't have the information of where to look to find and get that information,
then how can we clean up the mess that the previous PC government left us? I
mean it makes it impossible.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North over heckling me now, as he had three years. Well, there are not enough
Bounty paper towels I can tell you that, to the Member for Mount Pearl North, in
this province to clean up the mess that you left behind. I tell you, Mr.
Speaker, they don't want to own up to anything.
Mr.
Speaker, (inaudible) bringing about those cost savings. So given the magnitude
in spending and salary and benefits, it's important to ensure we have access to
all the relevant information. The question that's arisen: Would our ABCs have
the authority to release information in certain situations, such as commercially
sensitive information or situations where personal information such as
retirement projections?
So when
we get back the savings again, these are two big things. How much are spending
on something? Can we find something more efficient or that would cost less
money? Retirement projections going out – we all know that the Leader of the
Opposition wants to balance the budget, and the only way you balance the budget
with a $2.7 billion deficit is to cut and slash programs: health care,
education, roads and mass layoffs. That's what the Leader of the Opposition
wants to do, blue thunder. That's what he wants to do.
I mean,
this is what he wants to do. We are looking at attrition as a way for cost
savings. We're not doing mass layoffs; that would cripple the economy. So when
the Leader of the Opposition says he wants a balanced budget but he promotes
honest government, he's not being honest with us right now. He should be honest
and let us know that he's going to slash the public service; he's going to cut
across the board – cut our health care, cut education, tear up the Roads Plan. I
can guarantee he's going to tear up the Roads Plan so we are back to what we had
before.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
(Inaudible.) Yes, you can
find it online.
You have
the Member for CBS talking about Route 60, and I think there's some great work
done in that district, Mr. Speaker.
So when
you get to that, very important things – oh, we got the Minister of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour giving me a note. He's liking my speech; he's
telling me I'm doing a good job, Mr. Speaker. But the Opposition doesn't think
so because they don't want to do that. They could have brought something like
this in so you can actually get good information. They didn't want to do it. It
was too much trouble for them. It was too much trouble for them, because they
would actually have to do something to find savings.
They
spent like drunken sailors. They spent and spent and spent $25 billion over 10
years, oil revenues, and not a darn thing to show for it. I mean, Mr. Speaker,
that is ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous when we're here putting bills
forward like this so we can get the best information possible to put public, to
make the best policy for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And you
see a lot of that great policy in The Way
Forward document. I tell you, it's not easy to do a document like
The Way Forward when you have to reach
out to ABCs and they're very hesitant to give you information because they're
afraid to give you things like commercially sensitive information, situations
where personal information such as retirement projections are out there.
I mean,
this is what you need to plan to move forward and we have been serious about
getting our province back on track. The
Way Forward has done an amazing job. We have created jobs. We get the Leader
of the Opposition up asking questions about Canopy Growth every day. Minister,
how many jobs is that creating for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canopy
Growth?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Two hundred jobs. Biome is
another organization on the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Four hundred and sixty total
jobs and he's bringing it up like it's a bad thing.
Revenues
coming back to the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador and they're criticizing
it going back to municipalities, going back to our health care system, going
back to our roads, going back to our education system. I mean, this is what he's
getting up every day in the House of Assembly and asking, like there's some sort
of boogie man hiding behind the corner because of the cannabis history. I think
in 1950s they had a movie out called Reefer Madness; I think he may have been watching a bit of that too
much on his tour throughout his leadership campaign.
I
digress, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is getting back to a piece of legislation
that has to develop policy for us to move forward.
The Way Forward is doing that. We work with our departments. We work
with the Department of Transportation and Works to develop a Roads Plan because
we have all the best information. We knew that paving a kilometre here and a
kilometre there and a kilometre here to try to win votes, Mr. Speaker, doesn't
do you well.
What you
seen over the last three years, Mr. Speaker, based on the information that we
had, is that if you get early tenders out, if you plan well in advance – if you
plan well advance –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KING:
We have some hecklers here
because it all comes back to why this piece of legislation is important, Mr.
Speaker, so if you give me the little bit of leniency to talk to that. But what
we did was we did our research, developed policy, which this wants to do. You
can't necessarily do that with ABCs right now. So that's why we're able to get
better value for money.
Now, if
we look at our health care boards and we do the same thing, we get in and look
at our health care boards and find cost savings. We spend 40 per cent of the
provincial budget – roughly 40 per cent of the provincial budget is actually in
our health care system, Mr. Speaker. And right now, because they're a health
care board, that we have difficulty getting the information that we need to move
forward and look for efficiencies.
How can
we work with all four agencies to do things similar through – like an electronic
system, electronic file system where I go into the Bonavista hospital and then,
say, if I get ill today, or if I get ill when I'm on the road driving through
Gander which is Central Health, they would have my records on like that. That's
the type of ATIPPA information that's hurting us from moving forward, things
that can bring us forward, help patients, cut costs, Telehealth, things of that
nature, doing the same thing across all four boards.
So given
the magnitude of the spending on salary benefits, it's important to ensure that
we have access to all relevant information. When the Minister of Finance goes
and negotiates with our valuable and certainly wonderful public servants, that
we get all the proper information to give them a fair deal.
Questions have arisen whether ABCs have authority to release information in
certain situations such as – I just read that. We want to ensure the
government's ability to access to information needed to inform sound policy
decisions; ensure information provided by ABCs is protected by the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
confirm the requirement for ABCs to provide all applicable information in a
timely manner. That's a big thing: getting your information when you need it.
I'm sure
the Minister of Finance, right now, is working – the budget is probably not
until March or early April, but I'm sure he's getting all his ducks in a row
right now to plan next year's budget. I'm sure he would like to go back to the
ABCs and get all the information he needs to make sound decisions to get us back
to surplus in 2022. Given where we've been, that's no small feat, but the
Minister of Finance has been doing a good job on that. This bill is going to
provide the minister with the power to issue a directive requiring an ABC to
provide information.
So,
what's covered, Mr. Speaker? Relevant information can include: employment and
related agreements between the public body and its employees; compensation
policies, plans, guidelines, programs and reports; the current and projected
organizational structure and human resource requirements; current and projected
retirement eligibility of employees; and any other information the minister
deems necessary under the act.
That is
quite a laundry list of things that this bill allows us to do that we couldn't
do before. I see this is a big step forward; it's something that should've been
done a long time ago. It gives us all the information that we're going to need
moving forward.
I heard
someone say: Now, what's an agency board and director? I use the acronym here,
agency, board and director. If I'm out at Foodland in Bonavista, or talking to
someone at Swyers, or Mifflin's, or whatever: MHA, we hear you say ABCs all the
time. So what does that actually mean?
They're
Crown corporations, like the NLC, Newfoundland and Labrador Power, Nalcor – your
regular Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. They're operational and regulatory
boards; adjudicative bodies; advisory boards; self-regulating
occupation/industry boards; external and internal governmental boards.
Some
other key characteristics of agencies, boards and commissions includes: They're
accountable to government in accordance with the
Transparency and Accountability Act. So by bringing forward this
piece of legislation, that opens up us to be able to get the information that we
need to them, without them being worried that they're breaking the law. A lot of
this is, basically, something that's going to make things roll along a little
easier.
Other
characteristics are established by government, but not a part of a government
department. So they're independent. That's why you'll say the CEO of Nalcor, the
CEO of NLC and NL Power, they have some autonomy from government. They're under
the government structure, but they do have autonomy from government. They make
their own decisions and report back to government, and report back to this hon.
House. And you see that with the Liquor Corporation or ALC, where we partner
with three other provinces and you see a report tabled here every year; same
thing with Nalcor, they just had their fiscal update for first half of the year,
report to the public and report back to government.
Government holds the primary power of appointment, and a lot of this is through
Bill 1, the Independent Appointments Commission, and that's something we didn't
see with the PCs. They stacked all their committees and boards and agencies with
their cronies and friends and whatnot. We heard the Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation tell us a little bit about that last week when
he was pressed on another particular issue, and he tabled that.
I mean,
weeks before the election you had a former Health minister hand an official a
sticky tab with 20 names on it, saying get them jobs. That's the way it was done
under them. Under us, we have Clyde Wells, Shannie Duff, Zita Cobb, two other
people, highly qualified people, to go through this, make the recommendation to
Cabinet, and ultimately the best candidate is chosen. That's what we've done in
the Independent Appointments Commission, and that was a huge step forward.
Now,
other characteristics are: excluded from
Financial Administration Act, but to which government makes at least one
representative appointment; and to which government has assigned or delegated
authority or responsibility, or which otherwise has statutory authority or
responsibility to perform a public function or service.
So, Mr.
Speaker, my time is getting short. I'm sure I could go on for another 20 or 30
minutes because this act is that important.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
No, I want to give the
Opposition some time to respond to my – but I will be supporting this bill, Mr.
Speaker. It's a great piece of legislation. I'd like to thank all the officials
who took the time to put this together. As I mentioned early in my speech, it is
a challenge to get all the information together in a timely manner.
With
that, I'll take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand in this House as we start our fourth week to debate
legislation, and I was truly entertained by my colleague from the great District
of Bonavista, and some great outlining of where things are. Unfortunately, some
of them are not exactly in tune where we need to be going in the next year here
in the House of Assembly.
But I
might note, too, as we debate Bill 38, while it's only a small change on paper,
I personally think it's a very significant change. Because, as we've already had
the discussion here, and we'll continue to have the discussion, when we're
talking about agencies, boards and commissions, we're talking about a
substantial portion of money of the public coffers that are being used for
services, used for providing supportive mechanisms within our society.
But to
do that, to get the best return on that and to be able to be efficient in what
you do, you need to have information that's relevant to those organizations;
their operational, their salary base, their investment base. All the things that
are relevant to being able to make decisions that are in the best interests of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and getting the best return on our
investments.
We
already know in the operations of government, the core operations of government,
the Minister of Finance and every other minister, and even the general public
are aware of the financial commitments. Be it salaries, any other particular
perks, the operational structures that are involved, be it allowances, travel
budgets and these type of things, it's only encompassing that we'd have the same
thing for all the agencies, particularly when these agencies are using up to 60
per cent of the public monies that are put forward.
Again,
while it's a very small change, it's very significant because it sets the tone
for three key components as I see it. It sets the tone for the minister and the
government of the day to be able to understand exactly what financial
obligations they've been committed to, and are they in line with all the other
operations of government, or comparable agencies, boards and commissions as part
of that process. Also, knowing if indeed the operations internally are on the
same page as they would be from another operation within government. I mean, you
want to treat everybody equally. You're an employee of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While I
understand there are different classifications when it comes to salary bases,
and there are remunerations in similar ways in certain agencies for attracting
certain people, there has to be a realistic understanding from a taxpayer's
point of view and from an operational point of view of what is acceptable. And
you can't make changes. You can't even impose new policies if you don't
understand the baseline of what you're dealing with. The financial obligations,
and whether or not an agency or a board or a commission are actually fulfilling
their responsibilities by utilizing their finances in the best manner to get the
best return on the services they're hoping to provide.
So what
this does here – while it's very simple, I'm just going to read it out so people
would understand and why – I think there was an interpretation that maybe you
could push in previous legislation for this, but it wasn't explicitly spelled
out. So the minister, while thinking it would be very acceptable, the agencies,
boards and commissions weren't obligated to share that information. So the
minister going to Cabinet, setting budget lines and that, couldn't make an
informed decision as to whether or not they had some leeway to make some
financial cuts that would not be a major hindrance on providing the services but
would be in line with other operational procedures, particularly around salaries
and operations.
“This
Bill would enact the Public Bodies
Reporting Act.” Which is what
already exists and is what this government and previous governments have ran
their finances around, particularly around agencies, boards and commissions.
“The Bill would give the Minister the authority to require a public body to
provide information and documents relating to the public body.”
So there
are a number of things here. It's not only about salaries, but that's a big key
component. That's the one thing that you've seen more from the general public,
but it's also about procurement. It's about the way contracts are let. It's
about standing offers on which companies – and are you getting the best return?
Is there a more equitable way of doing it? Is there a fair way? How do you gauge
if you're getting the best return on paying for a service if you don't have
something to compare it to?
Obviously, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and then Cabinet, and all
of government here in the House of Assembly, would have a better understanding
of what's workable and what is indeed a better return if we knew exactly who was
involved here, what the costings were, and to do that you must have proper
documentation to be able to assess that. Because sometimes it's not always about
the lowest bid or the lowest provider, it's about the return on the service
that's been there, or it's about the individual that's being hired and the
salary based on that, and where does that individual or that group of
individuals fit when it comes to a layered process.
Everybody accepts that not everybody gets paid the same. Even a CEO is a CEO is
a CEO, it's not necessarily the way it is. But trends would dictate and setting
policies and operational structures would be based on, what is the norm out
there? If one agency is paying X number of dollars for a service or for an
individual to lead the organization at a certain salary base, why is another
organization that either has equal responsibilities or lesser paying more?
So you
have to do the examination there, and to do that the first thing you're going to
need is the proper documentation, the understanding, the sharing of the
information. I would hope the boards, agencies and commissions would understand
that they have the same responsibility as any other employee who works in any
other level of government to provide the best service possible and to be
answerable for providing that service.
Some it
is front line, some it's from an administrative point of view, but at the
boards, commissions and agencies level the financial responsibilities are the
same as they would be in any other department. Particularly when we go through
the budget process and Estimates, where every line department is scrutinized,
it's evaluated. There are a multitude of questions. There's information that's
asked for that has to be responded to in a timely fashion.
So
there's an opportunity then to really dig deep into whether or not the monies
are being spent in the right areas and what would be the expected return on
those. It makes everybody accountable, and that's what this is particularly
about here.
There
are two avenues I see here. It's the accountability and transparency that
everybody would know exactly what's what, but also from a financial operations
and a financial responsibility and a reporting process, that we would know
exactly what boards, agencies and commissions have as their expenditures but,
more importantly, what it's based on. What are the criteria for staffing? What
are the criteria for contracting? What are the criteria for specific types of
procurement? What is the process for internal operations?
This
change gives us that opportunity to get back to what the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador have been saying for the last number of years. We want to talk
about openness and transparency. We also want to talk about financial
responsibility and best return on our investments. People understand that you're
going to have to make certain decisions. Not everything is going to be rosy for
every particular group. There has to be priorities in how you do it.
If a lot
of our monies, particularly a major proportion of it, is being done by boards,
agencies and commissions, who are very capable of doing it, but at times may not
have the restraints or the accountability to the higher level. My argument to
the higher level here is the House of Assembly, because we're accountable to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
What's
the best way to do that? Budget debate and when you get into Estimates, because
at that point you can get clarification from all the officials who could clarify
exactly through the minister what it is that monies have been allocated for, how
they're going to be spent, what are their time frames and what are the expected
returns on that type of investment?
When we
don't have the boards in front of us and we don't have the same understanding,
because we don't have the documentation as to what it is they're setting as
their operational levels, their operational bar, for example, then we've got a
problem about how do we secure a proper fiscal movement forward knowing where we
have ability. So you don't cut something in health care in one area because you
have to make a cut, when you know – maybe you have flexibility in something else
that will not have an impact on health care or providing a particular service.
So
there's an opportunity here for everybody, for government, for the Opposition
here, for boards, agencies and commissions, and for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador to get a better understanding of the best approach to ensure we all
do our part to keep things flowing from a financial point of view.
The
Member for Bonavista had talked about the expenditures and that we're in
financially challenging times right now. And we all admit that. There's nobody
disputing that. But we have to maximize how we minimize the impact on people
here. So there's a maximizing and a minimizing.
We
maximize the opportunities we have here, and that means having a real, harsh
look at boards, agencies and commissions who are not following, in principle,
the operational thing. Not because they set it up that way, it's just that it
has evolved over decades about responsibilities and accountability when it comes
to particular procedures. So we're given an opportunity here for a senior
government official, the Minister of Finance, to be able to request any or all
information relevant to the operations, relevant to the expenditures. Relevant
to particular changes in the mandate in some of these agencies, boards and
commissions. So what we all have to do, from a collective point of view, is
let's not talk about moneys that have been spent or moneys that should be spent,
let's talk about what are the flexibilities that we have in the existing
expenditures.
We
already know we are at two points in our juncture here. That our spending is
higher than it should be based on our revenues, but we also have a
responsibility to provide core services. And there's an expectation on everybody
on the services that are being provided. There are no elaborate services that
we're throwing money at. Any level of government I haven't seen – sometimes you
invest money in a particular avenue to see what the return would be. You would
hope it always works out and it's in the best interests of the taxpayers because
the revenues generated or the service provided is in a much better area than it
would have been prior to you making that opportunity.
But, in
some cases, you can only go with the ability you have to invest. You can't
invest what you don't have when you have to provide key things that people
expect. They're base infrastructures and they're key things around health care
and education. So these are things that you need to prioritize, and every
administration prioritizes those. And we talk about infrastructure and we talk
about roadwork and we talk about all the other things that are important. We
talk about our responsibility to seniors and to young people. So you need to be
able to have the balance there as part of that.
But when
you know one of your big expenditures, or your biggest one, is agencies, boards
and commissions that you don't directly have complete control over – and when I
say control, it's not a control about that they have to do everything you tell
them, but control over understanding how they spend their money and is it in the
best manner. And you're not questioning whether or not they have the ability to
do that.
What
this will give now, the Minister of Finance, and their Treasury Board and their
Cabinet, the opportunity to examine whether or not this is in line with where
this administration would want to go, in line where the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador feels that is acceptable and equitable, but it also gives them the
flexibility to say, knowing through documentation and knowing through salary
bases and other expenditures, you have the ability to say: If we are to come up
with a fiscal approach that says we're going to cut 3 per cent of our
expenditures, how can we do that with minimizing the impact?
Boards,
agencies and commissions, because they operate differently, and it may be the
culture, sometimes maybe there is no way of changing what's there, but we've
known in the past that agencies, boards and commissions, salary bases are
normally higher, and in some cases it's necessary. Nobody disputes that. Their
procurement system sometimes is different. Somebody's not arguing that maybe
there isn't an opportunity to have that discussion. And in other processes
there, the way they operate in having a multitude of segments within their own
organization doing the same thing. So, there are efficiencies there that could
be found.
As we
share information, and as the information is provided, before you did it
basically on an agreement that they would supply it. There was no push to do it.
They weren't obligated to do it. It would become something that's second nature
when they got around to doing it. In a lot of cases, by the time a particular
department might get that information, it wasn't either relevant, the time had
passed that would've been an opportunity to do something with it, or even the
understanding of, you know what, if we find a way, knowing how this group
operates, that we can either find a partnership internally, or we don't have to
invest monies in a particular program or service because we're re-inventing the
wheel. Maybe one of our boards, agencies or commissions are better equipped to
be able to provide the services.
So, I
don't want to leave the false illusion here that this is about taking stuff away
from boards, commissions and agencies. It's not about taking away power. It's
not about taking away their operational mechanism. It's about finding a more
fluent way of using the information that now can be gathered to make every part
of government more efficient, but particularly a part of the entity that we –
and I say we collectively, this House of Assembly – didn't have direct control
over sharing that information to make that determination of whether or not they
were going in the right direction, or if there's a new approach, a better
approach, a more inclusive approach, to providing services and saving money for
the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As we go
through this, and there are a number of things – we get in Committee, there are
a few questions that we'll have for clarification around the gathering of the
information; the process around how that gets disseminated; to what benefits it
will be used; is there an ability here to have boards, agencies, and commissions
collaborate on certain things.
We
talked about certain things about central locations for particular things and
collaborate sharing of services so this would give an opportunity to look at –
because when you're talking about the ABCs that we have here, we're talking
about tens of thousands of employees; a very, very vast group who provide a
variety of services in Newfoundland and Labrador. There has to be ways that an
agency, in some cases, that is on the same street as another board or a
commission should be able to provide, or collaborate, or partner on particular
ways that they provide the service for the people. There are ways of doing that.
It could be from an administrative point of view. It could be from a travel
point of view. It could be from the actual bricks and mortar as we look at
things like that.
This
process here, it's not directly – I don't think – about let's go out and say
we're going to start cutting money and say there's going to be a guarantee we're
going to save money. One of the first philosophies I would like to see is that
when we look at exactly how these ABCs operate, we can automatically pick up
five or six efficiencies that could be implemented almost immediately by just
having the proper dialogue because we can say now, I've got the documentation
that this board does this, this commission does this, this agency does this. If
you all came together on administration, on travel, on hiring, on procurement,
on whatever the service may be, there may be ways of doing it.
It's not
going to work everywhere and it's not going to be a perfect system. But once you
start doing that then, as a government and as the House of Assembly, we can get
a better handle on how much money can be better channelled somewhere else, or
how much money can we say we can reach our goals of fiscal responsibility by
providing – either get to a point where there's going to be a balanced budget or
that the debt load is minimal in comparison so that we bring down what our
expenditures every year are and the commitment that we have to pay to the
lenders.
So as we
go through this process here, I'm going to be looking forward to asking the
minister to outline exactly the process that they're going to put in play.
Because it's not as simple as just sending a letter to each one of these boards
and saying can you give us the list of these 10 things that we're looking for,
the salary bases; what scales people are on; how do people move up the list; how
do you do advancement internally; what's the protocol for hiring; what are the
protocols for contracting; is it necessary to have five entities in five
different locations; can something be done differently.
This is
going to be an opportunity. We've had the opportunity to – that the Minister of
Finance will have, is to talk to his colleagues in Cabinet and other line
departments and say: This board has outlined this is what they do, based on the
information that I've collected. How could this be done – if it's a health
authority, for example, or if it's another agency that can support health
authorities; yet, is it connected to another line department for whatever
reason?
We have
a great opportunity here to put everything on an even keel. Because you don't
want to segregate those who work for government in one level and have agencies,
boards and commissions considered differently. They might provide a different
service, they might have a more independent structure from government, but
they're still responsible back to a government department and to this House of
Assembly.
They're
still responsible for the revenues they generate and the expenditures they incur
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have, obviously, an ultimate
responsibility if they're a service provider, and all of them are a service
provider at some level, depending what it is. If it's from the Liquor
Corporation, to if it's one of the other boards or agencies who operate in
conjunction with a line department, depending on what it is they're going to be
offering out there. So everybody has a responsibility to have look at it.
Now,
will some be pleased about it? Because it might mean somewhere down the road
there's a discussion around – responsibilities, everybody's at a certain level.
We have it in government that ADMs and DMs, while there's a variation in that
it's not a dramatic variation, because most have similar responsibilities. Most
go through similar processes of being hired and similar backgrounds,
education-wise and that, but they also have a little bit of a flexibility. Do
boards have five times more of that flexibility and then some? And that's what I
think we need to clean up.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll get an opportunity to speak to this again in Committee.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand for a few minutes to say I support this bill, and I will be
supporting this bill.
I know
going back two or three years, this was a big discussions around the government
about the boards, agencies and commissions and why there's no uniformity or
reasons why. We, as the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
would like some answers to it, and, of course, this bill will help out.
Mr.
Speaker, when you get different agencies, boards and commissions that can set
their own standards, set their own policies, set their own wage scale, set their
own tendering process, it becomes a system whereby – and to be fair to some of
the ministers across the way, when they stand up and ask questions, you try to
answer the questions; yet, you can't get the answers on why it's done because
this wasn't in place.
This
will be very beneficial to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It's almost like, and we all know it, that in some boards, agencies
and commissions wages are higher in some areas for the same people who are doing
the work in another board or agency or commission. It's almost like hamstringing
the government themselves by not being accountable; yet, you don't have the
tools to be accountable because you can't get the information you need and you
haven't got the authority to do it.
So I
will support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it was long overdue, and it's great
that the government is bringing it forward.
Even the
structures of government – when a Minister of the Crown is responsible for a
board, agency or commission and he don't have – he or she – control over that
board, agency or commission, yet you're expected to be responsible for what's
happening in that, you should have some kind of idea and you should be able to
make it some kind of uniformity within the department or within government
itself.
So it's
very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that the government can get control,
government can ask questions. The big winners in this is going to be the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you can find efficiencies, you're going to save
money. You're going to increase the service to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and, above all, people will get the answers. So this here itself will
ensure that government will have a bigger say in how the taxpayers' money is
spent.
Mr.
Speaker, just going through it: “the current and projected organizational
structure and human resource requirements of the … body.” That just kind of
highlights that you must bring it forward to the minister on the organizational
structure of the body itself, and then there'd be discussions with it. I know in
some cases when you go to a certain board or agency, the chair of the board or
the CEO of the board says: I don't have to answer to you. They can go off and
set up their own. It almost creates a two-tier system in government where
there's no accountability, or very little to the board that's set up.
The
second one: “the current and projected retirement eligibility of employees.” The
minister will now have the ability to go in and look for that and to look at the
structure of the pay, look at the eligibility for pensions, look at the
eligibility.
I know
I'm going way back, Mr. Speaker. There are one or two boards or agencies that I
remember when we were in Public Accounts that we looked at, and they were
setting their own fee structure. Then I remember on one of them they were
getting a wink and nod from the former minister – I'm going back five or six,
seven years. They were getting a wink and a nod from the Minister of Health
saying, yes, go ahead and do it.
The fee
structures were way out of whack to everybody else in the whole system. They
were setting their own fee structure. They were setting their own pay scale.
What it was, was a wink and a nod from the minister at the time. We all agreed
this should be stopped and we should try to bring things into some kind of unity
within government, and this will do that.
The
other one: “any other information and documents the minister determines
necessary for the purpose of this Act and the regulations.” This act will say
you have to present this to the minister, which should be. I'm a firm believer
that if you're a minister of a certain department, you should be able to have
all the information that's related to your department. You should not be able to
stand in this House – and I don't know, I don't think any minister wants this
anyway. I don't think any minister wants to stand in this House and say, I don't
know because we can't get the information.
Anybody
that I know, that's serving in that role, would stand up and say: I want the
information because I want to be accountable. If my name is on it and if I got
to stand up and justify it, I want to know what's happening and I want to be
able to make decisions about it because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
– they're the ones who got to answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
not somebody who is off on a board, agency or commission who says no, no, no, we
can't give it to you.
I don't
know of any person in that position who don't want the information; who don't
want to sit down and have a dialogue with anybody to help make this policy
better, help save money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, also,
help provide better services.
I think
everybody in this whole House will support this. There are going to be questions
on how it was done, but I don't think there's one person in this House that
would not support this, Mr. Speaker, because it's the right thing to do, and I
know the ministers.
In part
(b) of the act, which the minister can ask for: “conduct an analysis of the
information and documents provided under paragraph (a) and any related
information and documents.”
Mr.
Speaker, I know all departments went through a review process. They all went
down and said, okay, let's look at our government departments line by line and
go through it. When government did that, you were amazed with the amount of
funding you found, the amount of streamline departments you could bring in
together to a group of services. This is going to allow government to do it to
all agencies, boards and commissions.
Again, I
know in the budgetary process when you stand up and ask about different
departments, all ministers can give the information. But if you got something
restricted by legislation and you can't get the information and you know there
are savings in that area, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty frustrating as a minister and
as a Member of government not to be able to get it, even though you feel
confident that you can help and your department officials can help to streamline
and make things more efficient.
Mr.
Speaker, I will have more to say on this later, but I just wanted to say that I
support the bill. I will be supporting the bill. It is better for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to all the ministers that are there that I feel
very confident that every minister in this Crown wants to know the information
that is happening in their department and all boards and agencies under them so
they can stand up and be accountable to the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm very
confident that with the support of this going on – we found frustration for the
last number of years over this, Mr. Speaker. I'll just say it's great to bring
this forward. There will be some questions about – as there are going to be
questions on once you bring it in place, are there going to be some standard for
all across the departments; is it going to be department by department somehow
when you look at the wages, salaries.
Mr.
Speaker, another one that there was a lot of complications with it is the
tendering and the uniformity for tendering all throughout. We know about that.
This will help the departments. It will help the ministers in place for it.
I just
want to say I will be supporting the bill. I will be asking questions later on
it and I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be winners on this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 38, a bill regarding public bodies reporting.
The minister gave a good outline of this bill and other Members have spoken to
it before me, so I'm not going to go through all the details of the bill. But I
think it's extremely important for people to understand that agencies, boards
and commissions, those bodies, some of them are Crown corporations that do the
work that government needs done, but aren't departments of government. They're
absolutely separate agencies.
They are
agencies are autonomous, but this act is recognizing the difference between
autotomy and accountability. Being autonomous doesn't mean that they don't have
to be accountable to government and to the people of the province. As my
colleagues have said, that's what makes this bill so important.
When you
look at something like the statutory offices, which are a different category,
like the Citizens' Representative office, or the Child Youth Advocate office, or
the Seniors' Advocate office, all the different statutory bodies, they aren't
autonomous, and they are accountable, because they have to account, for example,
to the House Management Commission.
At
budget time, we have to sit down as the Management Commission – I say we,
because I am a Member of the Commission at this point in time – and the
statutory officer has to come to us with their proposed budget for the next
year. We get to ask them – if they want to add a position, for example, they
have to really prove to us why that position is needed. If they want to change
their structure, they have to explain why they're changing their structure.
So
statutory offices certainly have a built-in accountability to the Legislature.
So it's right that the agencies, boards and commissions that comprise 80 per
cent of the salary and benefits within the public service, that they have to be
accountable to the government through ministers for what they do, both in terms
of the structures that they put in place, the employment and related agreements
that they have with employees, their organizational structures, as I've just
said, their human resource requirements – even the projected retirement
eligibility of employees. All of these things are covered by the act and should
be covered by the act. These are things that should be known by government, and
government should be able to hold these boards, commissions and agencies
accountable – or the ABCs, as they're called.
The
purpose of the bill is to allow a minister to be able to get information from an
agency, board or a commission to actually get information that maybe the body is
withholding from government – and maybe withholding, as again, my colleagues
have said, under ATIPPA. What this is allowing is that while ATIPPA still
stands, there's a lot of information that can be gotten by a minister that isn't
covered by ATIPPA. This is what this bill will allow the minister to look for,
and that's extremely important.
Now, in
general, I do approve of the bill and I will be voting for it, but I do have
some concerns. The bill gives broad powers to the minister – clause 5, for
example. There are broad powers in what a directive can be issued on; I've
mentioned some of those. But I think what I would like to see is something in
the bill that says what would trigger a minister taking action, what would
trigger a minister going to an agency or a board, one of the Crown corporations,
and asking for information with regard to the employment terms, or asking for
information with regard the structure. Asking information with regard to why
some employees were promoted without competition, for example, or why employees
maybe making more money than other government employees doing the same job, but
inside of a government department.
So what
would trigger a minister doing that? I'm sorry that the bill doesn't indicate a
trigger. I think it would be really good if the bill did indicate a trigger that
a minister would say: Oh yeah, I really should go and speak to this agency, r
board or committee.
A
trigger that comes to mind is something that actually happened in 2013. In 2013,
there was an investigation by the Auditor General, and that investigation that
was done by the Auditor General showed that the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre
for Health Information, which was a public agency, was paying salaries
completely out of whack with the government's pay scales. I'm sure most of us
remember when that happened; it was five years go. There was quite a noise made
about this, and rightly so.
The
Centre for Health Information is an arm's-length agency in government, which
sets its own pay scales. Its main role is to spearhead the province's Electronic
Health Record initiative. The Auditor General reported that employees were
promoted without competition. They reported that employees make more money, at
the time, than any other government employee doing the same job. The AG reported
that their jobs were classified to higher pay scales more frequently than the
rest of government.
The
Auditor General's report, in this case, was an instance where the minister, in
his or her power, could use this act. If an AG came out with a report like that
now, the minister could use this act to ensure information flows to government
to ensure government policy and regulations are followed.
So, this
is a really good example which shows a situation, which government may want more
information, to ensure that public policy is followed.
I would
have liked to have seen the act to be a bit more prescriptive with regard to the
conditions under which the powers outlined in the bill would or could be
triggered. It could be an Auditor General's audit, it could be a story in the
media or it could be information from a whistle-blower or other criteria.
I'm sure
the ministers, now that the act is in place, will be more aware now they have
this authority; therefore, I believe responsibility to seek out information from
agencies, boards, commissions and committees, that now that they have that
authority, they will be more on top of doing it. Maybe they will be more alert
to watching out for situations – they'll be more alert. If they hear something
is going on they can proceed and start asking some questions because of this
act.
The
other thing that the act does, which I think is important as well, is the bill
explicitly – the bill I mean – gives the minister the power to make public the
failure of a public agency to comply if a minister goes forward and asks for
information. And if an agency or board or commission doesn't comply, the bill
gives the minister the power to make that failure of compliance public. So
that's good as well.
I would
have liked it, I think, if the bill actually said that ministers would do that.
That it's not just something the minister has the power to do, but that the
minister should actually do it.
I know
there is a hesitancy in government when it comes to being too prescriptive in
bills – I've raised this issue before – and I understand that, but I think we
could have had in the bill at least some direction about what would trigger a
minister asking for an audit, or a minister asking to see what is actually the
practice that is going on. I think I'll have a chance in Committee to ask more
questions about that and I will do so, Mr. Speaker, at that time.
In
general, I think we need this. We absolutely need it. We start looking at what's
happening right now in the Muskrat Falls inquiry and start wondering how maybe a
bill like this may have helped, but even then it would have had to have been the
will in the Premier of the day or in the responsible minister of the day to take
action. So that's my concern. The bill will allow for an act that will give the
powers, but only if the minister chooses to use those powers. So that to me is a
weakness. But, having said that, I will support the bill, though, I think it
does have that weakness.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly is a pleasure to stand this afternoon to speak to Bill 38. Mr.
Speaker, a lot of what I would have said has been said by others. I will
obviously be supporting this bill.
I have
to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised when I saw this bill that this
was even required. I was really surprised it was even required. I was always of
the assumption, and we know what we say about when you assume things, but I was
of the assumption that if the minister wanted information from agencies, boards
and commissions and so on that fell under his or her department, that the
minister could just simply get it.
I was
shocked to learn that if the minister ever was asking for information from an
agency, board or commission that they could just simply say: no, you can't have
it – end of story. That's shocking to me. It's shocking that we have gone on
this long for years and years and years and have accepted that. Previous
administrations over the – I'm assuming this has been on the go, I don't
know how many years, but for a long, long time, and I'm shocked it would have
just been accepted on face value, that's the way it is, to be honest.
We've seen examples over the years where there've been a
lot of questions that have come up, that have arisen relating to agencies,
boards and commissions. One that comes to mind, I think of Nalcor as an example
– and not even everything that's going on with the Muskrat Falls inquiry, that's
something unto itself, but I think of even DarkNL, just as an example.
When DarkNL occurred and the subsequent Liberty report came
out, Liberty Consulting concluded that the reason why we were in the dark was a
failure to do basic maintenance at Holyrood. I never felt there was ever
any legitimate answers given as to how that could have even happened. We know
that it did happen. We know the Liberty Report indicated that's what happened,
but we never did find out, which I believe the minister – I don't know if the
minister knows or not. I don't know if the Cabinet knows. I don't know, but
certainly nobody over here knows. The public doesn't know.
When we
look back at DarkNL and the Liberty Report, who is responsible? They're saying
they didn't do basic maintenance. So who didn't do basic maintenance? I find it
hard to believe that the power engineer just decided, I'm not going to do
maintenance for the next 10 or 20 years, just leave her be. I'm sure that didn't
happen. I can't believe that would happen.
Was it a
manager who said we're not going to bother to do maintenance? Was it a director?
Was it the head of Newfoundland Hydro? Was it the head of Nalcor? Was it
somebody in the Department of Natural Resources or on the eighth floor that said
we're not going to go doing maintenance? We're going to roll the dice and see
what happens and hopefully Muskrat will come online and hopefully things won't –
I don't know what happened.
The
point is, that's an example of a Crown agency responsible to the people that
we're all paying for and we could not get a good answer, nobody could, as to who
made that decision, ultimately, to say we weren't going to do maintenance in
Holyrood and then left all Newfoundland and Labrador in the dark. It's
absolutely shocking that that information should not be readily available to the
minister and to the general public.
And not
only at the time, when you think about it – at the time, not only was nobody
held accountable – that we're aware of. I don't think anyone got fired over it.
I don't know, we don't know. But at that time, everybody got their big corporate
bonuses because they had a good safety record, apparently. Allegedly, there was
a good safety record.
You
think about it: what is the mission, really, of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?
It is to provide power to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's
their primary goal, and they couldn't even do that. They couldn't even do that.
That's why they exist, and they couldn't even get that right because they didn't
bother to do maintenance. At the end of the day, the power goes down and
everybody gets their corporate bonuses because we had a good safety record.
Absolutely shocking when you think about it. And we still don't have those
answers.
We had
allegations out there in the media from a former chair of the board talking
about conflict of interest amongst board members and so on. Never did get
answers to that, either. Never got answers to that. What's that all about? I
don't know. Who was in conflict?
And if
someone was in conflict, why didn't you bring that forward years before you sort
of left in a huff? Is it because you were all friendly and buddies then, so
we're not going to say nothing? Now, all of a sudden I'm mad at you, so on my
way out I'm going to talk about this conflict of interest and dig out the files.
I got the ammo; we got the ammo. Dig out the ammo; I remember that. Never did
get any answer on any of that. That's a Crown corporation.
Ridiculous that we can't get answers. We look in more recent times, very recent
times, with the English School District; what just happened with the English
School District renting wheelbarrows for thousands of dollars and all this stuff
that's gone on. Really, you think about it, the English School District, and the
minister don't have the ability to get the info and find out what's going on
with the procurement practices and the staff setup and how everything is set up
and who's getting paid what, who's doing what, how they're tendering or not
tendering, and what processes they have in place to ensure that the checks and
balances are there to prevent this kind of stuff.
It's
ridiculous when you think about it. Absolutely ridiculous that the minister,
whoever the minister happens to be, doesn't have the ability to get all relevant
information and manage things, because the minister ultimately wears it, and is
responsible for it. Yet, the minister doesn't have the ability to get the
required information and to make sure that things are going as they should.
Absolutely astounding, really, when you think about it, particularly given the
fact that when you looked at the provincial budget, I think somebody said 60 per
cent is agencies, boards and commissions, maybe higher?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Eighty.
MR. LANE:
Eighty per cent. Wow. Eight
per cent, and we don't have access –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yeah, that's true, you think
about the health care, the health boards and so on.
The
people have duly elected all the people in this House of Assembly to manage
their affairs, and to think that somehow these entities can exist and, in
theory, do whatever they want, with little to no accountability, is absolutely
shocking. It really is absolutely shocking.
I've
mentioned it in the past to Members and ministers, and this was brought up. When
we're looking at the budget each year and we go through the Estimates process,
it's a line-by-line accounting of every dollar that's being spent in core
government departments, and Members of all parties can ask questions to the
officials from various divisions of departments on the money that's being spent,
why there are variances from one year to the next, what got picked up, what go
dropped, all this kind of stuff.
We do
that because we're doing our due diligence, and it's all done publicly. But when
you think about it, agencies, boards and commissions are accounting for 80 per
cent of the public money being spent. We don't do any of that. It's just sort of
left to their own. They'll do an annual report. They'll probably have an annual
general meetings and file an annual report. But there are no specifics; there's
no line-by-line analysis or anything else.
I've
asked questions in the past about the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation because of
some concerns I had there, and you can't get answers, generally. And it's all
been: Well, geez, why are complaining about the Liquor Corporation? They're
bringing in money; they're bringing in a lot of money. That's true; they are
bringing in a lot of money.
But just
because they're bringing in a lot of revenue doesn't mean that there are
unnecessary expenses going out the door that the public don't have a right to
know what they are and that the minister shouldn't be ensuring that the expense
side of the equation is not being managed to the best possible scenario for the
taxpayer, because money saved is more money earned.
So
instead of making a profit, so many millions large, we can make it bigger
because of money that we're not spending on unnecessary things, in theory; but,
we never know because we never have the ability to question those things, or to
get into the details of those things. As disappointing and disturbing as that
was, to me as a Member, it's even more disturbing, as a Member, to know that the
minister can't even do it.
I say,
whoever over on that side decided to get our House in order in terms of this
particular amendment, or this piece of legislation, good for you, whoever you
were, for identifying this. I'm certainly glad that the government is taking
some action on this because it's definitely something that has been lacking, and
it's definitely the right thing to do.
Before I
take my seat I will say, now that we're on this topic, I would urge the
government, as we tie into the whole concept of agencies, boards and
commissions, I just want to go back to Nalcor, very quickly, for a moment. We're
talking about public disclosure of information, or even disclosure to the
minister, we still need amendments to the
Energy Corporation Act.
We had
an amendment brought when we sat in the spring. I said at the time it didn't go
far enough and, sure enough, on the embedded contractors, they still said we
couldn't get the information. We need to make that amendment. We need to remove
a section out of the Energy Corporation
Act so that ATIPPA applies, and that requests to Nalcor for information,
like embedded contractors and other things, would be scrutinized by the Privacy
Commissioner and he will determine what information can be made available and
what information can't be available, and that there would be an opportunity for
appeal and so on.
So the
Minister of Natural Resources at the time, when I brought this up in the spring,
she said well this is what we're doing now in the interim; there'll be more to
come. We've only got a couple of weeks to go, so I hope there's more to come
before the House closes on the Energy
Corporation Act so that we can get more information out of Nalcor. I hope
that that's going to happen as well.
But with
that said, as I said, this is a very good piece of legislation, and I'm sure
that every Member of the House on all sides, I would suspect, is going to
support this because, again, it is the right thing to do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat speaks now he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
apologize for referring to my phone but, as some of the Members were making
points, I was making notes and seeking information from departmental officials.
So I'll address some of those. Once we get into Committee if there are other
issues or concerns, we can certainly talk about those.
First of
all, I want to thank all Members who spoke and all sides of the House for
putting their viewpoints forward on this piece of legislation. It is important
in allowing government to work more closely and work better with our agencies,
boards and commissions to find efficiencies and do attrition planning and make
changes to organizational structures as we move forward and so on.
So in
2017, in the mid-year update, we revealed at that particular update that 80 per
cent of the salaries in this province are paid through our agencies, boards and
commissions; 80 per cent of the public service salaries are paid through
agencies, boards and commissions. So, that's a very important reason for this
legislation.
We've
looked at, within core government, which is government departments, finding
efficiencies and the Government Renewal Initiative and so on. We've been able to
find efficiencies. We've been able to put in place a very solid attrition plan
within government departments. But we need to do the same sort of thing within
agencies, boards and commissions because that is 80 per cent of where the
salaries paid out of the public purse are going in this province.
Section
10 – I think the Leader of the Opposition talked about section 10 – essentially,
that's to guard against unforeseen circumstances where someone might object to
government being provided with information, or because they object to it – we've
heard of contractors, for example, at Nalcor, and Nalcor saying that that was
proprietary information. So if one of the contractors, for example, objected and
sought to bring legal action because they didn't want that information to go
forward.
Essentially, it's to guard against unforeseen circumstances in those situations;
keeps the focus on getting information while protecting both the agency, board
or commission, as well as government from any potential legal action.
The
legislation is not the start of this process. Somebody talked about the fact
that it was the start of this process. It's the continuation. We've been working
co-operatively with our agencies, boards and commissions. Some of the
information they simply cannot provide to us because of either their legislation
or because of ATIPPA legislation, and they're concerned about the protection of
privacy.
This
allows them to provide that information to government in situations, or in areas
where they cannot currently provide that information. We can only put in place
proper attrition plans or proper organizational structures, or organizational
efficiencies if we know the full context of the organization and we're able to
work with that agency to put the plans in place.
Somebody
talked about issuing directives. That's one tool available but if we're getting
co-operation from our agencies, boards and commissions and they're concerned
about privacy legislation, we don't need a directive. We continue to work
co-operatively with them, giving them the tools they need to be able to provide
us with the information we need to continue working with them.
Somebody
mentioned about the bill – the information going directly to the minister
responsible for the ABC. Again, that's not the intent of this legislation. It is
for officials within Finance, and within the Human Resource Secretariat, to be
able to work on organizational structures, attrition plans and finding
efficiencies.
One of
the Members talked about a trigger; getting information when something has gone
wrong. Again, that's not the intent of this legislation. It's to allow the
agencies, boards and commissions to have a willingness to work with government
to find efficiencies. Some of the information, they want to provide to us –
right now, they're concerned about providing that because of potential
litigation in the form of external consultants or contractors, or in terms of
their retirements plans. People looking to retire and considering that to be
information which is considered personal information and within their own
legislation –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If I
could ask the minister to, please, speak into the microphone.
Thank
you.
MR. OSBORNE:
Absolutely. Sorry about that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. OSBORNE:
I was looking at the member I
was addressing.
MS. MICHAEL:
I understand.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah.
So, it's
about allowing the agencies, boards and commissions to work with us. They have a
willingness; but, in some cases, their own legislation, they feel, prevents them
from being able to share information, and the ATIPPA legislation, they're
concerned about the privacy aspect. So this mitigates those concerns and allows
us to continue to work with those agencies to find the efficiencies; similar to
what we've done within government departments over the past two or three years.
There's a whole lot more we can be doing if we're able to focus on the other 80
per cent of salaries that are paid out of the public purse.
So, I
think that's most of the information that was brought up during debate. Again,
any questions that we have, I'd be happy to get into those when we get into
Committee and go clause by clause.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 38 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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now?
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies,”
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38.
MR. SPEAKER:
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 38, An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public
Bodies.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies.” (Bill 38)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again
under clause 2, under Definitions, the definition of employee which is used
indicates that it is “a person retained under a contract to perform services for
the public body.”
Minister, I'm asking the question: Can the minister clarify that this will
include embedded contractors as well as employees?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I had a
bit of a job hearing you; there's a bit of chatter in the House. I think the
question was does it include embedded contractors.
MR. BRAZIL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, it does.
MR. BRAZIL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. OSBORNE:
We'd be able to access
details around that information as well.
I don't
anticipate this legislation will be passed today and we'll have all that
information tomorrow. I mean, it's going to take some time, working with the
agencies involved, to get that information, but that is part of the information
we'll be able to get a greater level of information on, yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I just wanted some
clarification. Why does the legislation read that the minister may request the
information instead of mandating that the information be provided to the
minister on a regular basis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
The intent of this
legislation is that the information will be provided on a more consistent basis.
There would be more regular timelines set up with our agencies, boards and
commissions. I know we get from government departments quarterly information,
for example, we're not getting that from all of our agencies, boards and
commissions. It makes it difficult, for example, to put in place an attrition
plan when we don't have all of the information and it's not coming in on a
consistent basis.
So the
intent is that our agencies, boards and commissions, similar to government
departments, would have more regular reporting to HRS on staffing and
organizational structures, and more reporting to government on things where we
may be able to find operational efficiencies as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do
understand and appreciate that. My question would be, just as a rebuttal to
that. When you say regularly, will this be set like quarterly we'd like to have
these discussions and this information, or will it be when you feel you need
some information to make a determination on a financial issue or something that
you requested?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
It's certainly my hope that
we'll get more regular information from our agencies, boards and commissions. I
believe there's a willingness there from them to be providing that information.
That's not the way it's happening currently.
Again, I
don't want to handcuff staff within HRS because there's a – I mean they're not
walking around with magic wands or anything like that where they're going to be
able to compile this information quickly. If we start getting more regular
information – I don't want to create an expectation that they're going to be
able to just magically somehow deal with that. But the intent, yes, is we would
have more regular information flowing from the agencies, boards and commissions
to HRS, for example.
As we
start getting that information more regularly and we determine the ability to
deal with that and handle that information we may have to look at how HRS are
equipped to deal with that as well. Hopefully, we're equipped under what they
currently have to be able to deal with that and to design organizational
structures. If we're looking at job descriptions and so on and we're going to
ensure there's a consistency with government job evaluations, obviously, those
types of things take time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just
going to follow up on what the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island has
been asking the minister.
Are you
saying that you're putting in the legislation without the kind of detail that
we're asking about? That's the kind of detail I was also meaning when I spoke in
second reading. Are you saying you're putting in the legislation without the
resources yet in the Secretariat to deal with the kind of information that
you're going to be looking for?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
No, not
at all. And if that was the impression, I apologize.
What I'm
saying is that once information – I believe we have the resources available to
deal with the information but once we start getting information on a more
regular basis, as we're getting from government departments – just in being
completely open and transparent with the House, I want to ensure that we do have
the resources if – so what I said is without handcuffing the staff in HRS or
asking them to do a task, that once we start getting the regular information and
if we're going to be doing job evaluations for agencies, boards and commissions
or what have you, we may have, at some point, to look at ensuring that they're
also equipped to deal with the job at hand. I think they are; I believe they
are.
Once we
start getting information flowing on a more regular basis, what I'm putting out
there for the general public and for all Members of the House is to realize that
these individuals work very hard. They do a very good job, but I'm not asking
them to perform magic in having the details compiled and the statistics readily
available immediately if the information comes in more quickly than we
anticipate.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for his answer previously to the question I had.
Legislation outlines the information which will be provided to the minister.
This includes: employment and relations agreements, compensation policies,
project retirements, et cetera. Will this also include information paid to
contracting and consulting companies as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes. I'm not sure if that's
the same question you'd asked earlier, but, yes, we are hoping to get that type
of information as well from our agencies, boards and commissions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
No, I did ask but from a
different angle previously, but that does answer this part of it.
The
legislation also outlines that the minister may audit or appoint an auditor to
audit the records to ensure that the public body is compliant. Can the minister
outline what would happen if a public body is found not to be compliant with the
ministerial directive to provide information?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
The intent here is that just
as we're getting the information from government departments there's an
expectation that a deputy minister and the minister, the staff within a
government department would provide timely and accurate information to
government. I fully anticipate that would be the case with our agencies, boards
and commissions as well.
I'm not
anticipating that we won't have co-operation. I am anticipating we will, but the
fact they're arm's-length agencies, we need to ensure that we get this
legislation right from the start, and in the event we need to carry out an audit
we have the ability to do that. I don't anticipate that's going to be the case,
but we need to ensure that the tools are in the toolbox in the event that five
years or 10 years down the road we get an agency that simply doesn't want to
comply.
At this
particular stage, we have a great level of co-operation with our agencies. This
legislation is clearly designed as a continuation of that work. Because some of
the agencies have identified areas in their own legislation or in ATIPPA where
they can't provide the information, but they've shown a willingness to provide
it. So this is to give us the ability to continue to work with our agencies,
boards and commissions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
One last
question here. In the legislation it talks about – section 8(2) and 8(3) talks
about section 5.4 of the Energy
Corporation Act. This section which talks about commercially sensitive
information.
Can the
minister please clarify 8(2) and 8(3)? Will the minister have access to
information which Nalcor considers commercially sensitive?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Again, the question on the
contractors and so on, this is some of the information we were told was
commercially sensitive at this particular point. Yes, we're hoping to have
access to that information. That's what is referred to here. That's the intent
of these clauses, is to create the bridge necessary, for example, from Nalcor to
government to be able to provide us with that information.
Now,
that information, if it is commercially sensitive, government need that
information in order to be able to determine whether or not we can find
efficiencies, or whether or not the job can be done by somebody who's hired
directly by Nalcor as opposed to an external contractor, or whether or not it
should be part of the organizational structure. That information will be treated
and respected through the Privacy Commissioner and through ATIPPA, the same as
it is today to protect the fact that it's commercially sensitive information.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for that answer.
My last
question here is, and it falls in line with the discussion we just had that
time: Does the minister envision making regulations general or regulations for
specific entities like Nalcor, for example?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
This legislation is intended
to be broad to cover all of our agencies, boards and commissions. I know that
the Leader of the Opposition had brought up Atlantic Lottery. We don't have the
same level of control at Atlantic Lottery as we would, for example, with Legal
Aid, or as we would with Nalcor, or as we would with Eastern Health, because
four provinces share in the governing of Atlantic Lottery, for example.
So,
Atlantic Lottery was specifically excluded from this for that reason, but this
is meant for agencies that have a direct reporting to government, agencies that
are set up by this government, that we don't share the responsibility with other
Atlantic provinces or the federal government, for example. It's meant to be very
broad and encompass all of our agencies, boards and commissions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
And I
appreciate, Minister, that you did speak to the issue I raised in second reading
with regard to things that would trigger government wanting to, or ministers
wanting to get more information, and I understand what the act is dealing with.
But, at
the same time, wouldn't you be interested in the fact that if you get word of
some irregularities inside of an agency, that that would be a reason for going
to the agency, outside of regular reporting, but that would be a reason for
going to the agency to get information about the irregularity that you're
hearing about.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Just as an example, we're all
familiar with what happened at the English School District, and that was an
irregularity. The intent of this is to be able to find efficiencies within our
agencies, boards and commissions. That's the intent of the legislation, to have
that co-operation, the continued co-operation that we've seen with them. We
haven't yet been able to satisfy ourselves that all of the information that's
needed to find efficiencies and put in place organizational structures, working
co-operatively with the agencies that are there, so that's what this legislation
is.
But
absolutely, if there's an irregularity such as there is with the English School
District, for example, government will deal with that. This is intended
primarily – payroll statistics, attrition, planning, and retirement statistics.
What we're looking for here is the ability to continue working with our
agencies, boards and commissions on these items.
Absolutely, if there's an irregularity found, that will be dealt with. Whether
or not this information would help with that, I guess would remain to be seen on
what the irregularity is.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Minister, looking at the issue with regard to auditing, it says the Audit
Committee may request that the minister direct the comptroller general to audit
the records of an office of the legislative branch to determine whether the
office is complying with the act.
Just
like you're saying that you're considering regular reporting, maybe quarterly
reporting – and I have to say I'm sorry that that's not in the legislation. But
if you're considering that why would you – or I'll put the question, are you
considering regular auditing as well rather than intermittent or does this mean
that you are looking at regular auditing?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I think there are a couple of
aspects to this. The Auditor General has the ability to do a regular audit on
any of our agencies, boards and commissions at any time. When it comes to
regular reporting, that is absolutely our intent. Once the reporting becomes
standardized, regular and consistent, it will be less burdensome on the staff at
HRS.
If we're
opening the flood gates now all of a sudden – and that's, in part, what I have
alluded to earlier. I'm not handcuffing my staff in HRS to say they're going to
perform magic, because all of a sudden they're going to get a bountiful access
to information and reporting. But once that becomes consistent and regular, it's
going to be easier to deal with.
I
absolutely intend and absolutely hope that the reporting will be as regular as
it is with government departments, which is quarterly.
Does
that answer your question? Okay.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 12 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 12
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 12 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, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 38.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 38.
Shall
the motion carry?
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 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 38 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report Bill 38 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, reported received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 33.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
second reading of Bill 33, seconded by the hon. Government House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 33 entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency
Act, Bill 33, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation
Transparency Act.” (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
pointed out, the title of the bill is An Act to Amend the Public Sector
Compensation Transparency Act. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to discuss
those amendments today in the House of Assembly. In 2016, the
Public Sector Compensation Transparency
Act and regulations were passed in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker,
requiring the annual compensation disclosure of all employees in departments and
a number of agencies, boards and commissions who received total compensation of
more than $100,000 per year.
While a
level of voluntary disclosure occurs within the House of Assembly staff and
statuary offices, there remains some issues as to the applicability of this act
for those groups within government, including the House of Assembly services,
statutory offices and political support staff is in line with the original
intent of the legislation. We believe it's important to update the act to ensure
that we reflect this.
Government respects the right of citizens to access information on how public
funds are used. We're committed to practicing strong fiscal management on behalf
of the people of the province. With that in mind, it's important to provide
access to information about government spending in an open and transparent way.
In
making these amendments, Newfoundland and Labrador now joins other provinces,
such as Alberta and Ontario, in a proactive approach to compensation and
transparency that specifically includes the legislative branch of government.
In the
Department of Finance we have Public Accounts, which are audited financial
statements for the province. For every government department we also have
Estimates, where members' opposite can ask questions regarding the spending in
these departments. We believe that spending on salaries should be open and
transparent, within reason.
The
provincial government spends approximately $3.3 billion annually on employee
salaries and benefits; 40 per cent of the entire expenses of government, at $8.5
billion, is on salaries and benefits. So it stands to reason that this
information should be made available.
The
public sector compensation and transparency regulations have been updated to
include information regarding the House of Assembly, political support staff,
statutory officers, as well as employees of statutory offices. As with previous
compensation disclosure lists, they will include the name of the employee, the
employee official job title, the name of the department or public body in which
they are employed, their total compensation and a breakdown of the total
compensation into base salary, overtime, shift premiums, retroactive pay,
bonuses, as well as severance where applicable.
Mr.
Speaker, the act still requires the provincial government and public bodies to
have their lists published annually by June 30. And, as in previous years, they
will be posted to the Human Resource Secretariat website as well. With these
changes, the 2019 list will now include the House of Assembly service and the
staff, as I previously mentioned.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to reassure the staff in instances where disclosure could
reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of an
employee, those individuals can apply for an exemption. I also assure staff that
this amendment is not about knowing an individual's salary, it's about being
open and accountable on how public money is spent. Disclosing compensation
information of public sector employees promotes transparency and accountability
and provides taxpayers with information about how government spends public
funds.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to put the legislation forward. I look forward
to discussion on both sides of the House, and any questions that Members have
we'll certainly endeavour to provide responses to those questions.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise to Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation
Transparency Act.
I look
at the Explanatory Notes of the bill, the main intent of the bill is to: “expand
the application of the Act to include House of Assembly employees, statutory
officers and political staff; authorize the Clerk of the House of Assembly to
exempt information from being disclosed regarding House of Assembly employees,
statutory officers and political staff; and authorize the Speaker of the House
of Assembly to hear an appeal of a decision of the Clerk of the House of
Assembly regarding the exemption of House of Assembly employees, statutory
officers and political staff.”
So the
purpose of the bill is to look at – as the Explanatory Notes I just referenced –
the House of Assembly and the statutory bodies of this House. Some changes to
the entities would fall under the act and will also be made.
The
legislation in and of itself is often referred to, as we know, and we brought it
through the Legislature, the sunshine list legislation. And the intent of that
was to provide disclosure of names, titles, departments and total compensation
of employees who earn over $100,000 each year. I think it was in June of this
year that there was release of that information.
I
understand in the briefing and some of the information with the Human Resource
Secretariat – that's why we're doing this amendment here, or doing this actual
bill. The current act as written, does not include the House of Assembly,
including House staff, statutory offices and political staff. So this bill today
that we're referring to, Bill 33, is intended, I understand, to address that.
In 2017
and 2018, when the disclosure lists were created and released there was an error
made – is my understanding – and employees who fall into that category were
included on the list. This was treated as an error and notification given on it
as such. At that time, officials did note that the House of Assembly proactively
discloses some employees salaries but I guess this will define in the bill and
in the legislation, with amendments to the act, specifically what will be
disclosed if there are areas for exemptions, if there are areas to appeals, and
that's outlined in the bill.
The
legislation, the bill if it passes will make it mandatory to include employees
of the House of Assembly, all the statutory offices of the House and political
staff who make over $100,000 in a compensation disclosure list. And that would
be consistent then with the legislation as it was originally written, and I
guess envisioned, and would bring in line, as I said, the House of Assembly and
the statutory offices.
The bill
itself references the executive branch and the legislative branch. It goes
through the various statutory offices, meaning: the Information and Privacy
Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Child and Youth Advocate, the Chief
Electoral Officer, the Citizens' Representative, the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, and the Seniors' Advocate. So that lists out the
relevance to this bill in regard to the intent and who it's going to affect.
As well,
there's provision in the bill – and the intent of the bill is to look at not
only identifying who would be included, but looking at an exemption and what
that would look like in regard to the legislation. That gets into, specifically
related to who would allow that, how the process would work and that type of
description.
Then it
goes on and talks about the disclosure for the exemption and what's required
under the act, notification for that exemption, who's made aware. The minister
is made aware on how it actually transpires. So that's all outlined in Bill 33
to bring it in consistently in terms of those employees part of this House and
the statutory offices that I've outlined and how they are done.
So it's
straightforward in that respect, in regard to bringing these particular offices
in line with the current intent of the legislation. That's the overall direction
of the bill and what the intent is. I'm sure as we go through in Committee we'll
have some questions in regard to the application of the particular bill and how
it connects to the current legislation that exists today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill at second reading?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to this bill. I won't be speaking too long to this. I
understand what's being done here. We're just including a group of employees,
political staff, statutory officers with the House, adding them to what
currently exists. So it's pretty simple in that regard.
I will
say, though, just for the record, that – and that's not what's being necessarily
done here in this bill because, like I said, it's just an amendment to what was
already done. But for the purposes of this bill and the broader bill, I would
say that, for the record, I have concerns. It's not going to change anything
here, it is what it is, and I will vote for the bill because it's just adding
the other people there, but I really don't believe we should be putting people's
names with this. I really don't. I see no reason why we can't achieve the same
thing.
Taxpayers absolutely have the right to know where their money is being spent,
and to have full disclosure. Certainly, as elected officials, we sign up for a
job that's a public office. The salaries are out there and so on. Fair enough, I
got no issue with that. But if somebody wanted to know, for example, how much is
being spent at a certain department or how much is being spent at a school on
administrators and teachers and whatever the case might be, fair enough. You can
certainly list the positions and you can list the salaries and all that, but for
the life of me I still can't understand and I still will never agree in
principle – that's just my opinion, and I know it's shared by a lot of people.
There are some people who disagree, too.
Actually, if you put that our there on social media you'll have quite the
debate, pro and con. It's probably split down the middle, but I would say that I
really don't think there's any need of putting people's names. You can put the
position, you can put the salaries, you can put if it's overtime or whatever it
is, fair enough. But putting someone's name there just so that someone can go
through the list one night or on their computer just to see: How much is the
neighbour making? How much is Joe down the street making? I wonder how much, now
– such-and-such who works with the wife, her husband works with the government,
how much is he making I wonder? And then start scrolling down and looking at
those personal details.
I don't
see any purpose whatsoever. I don't see how it is in any way doing anything to
enhance what we do here with government to attach someone's personal name to it.
Position, yes; salary, yes. But the person's identity, their name, I just don't
– that's just my opinion. I don't think we should be doing it.
The
other thing I say is that $100,000 a year is an arbitrary number. So if it's all
about disclosure, public disclosure, why is it $100,000? Why isn't it $90,000,
$80,000, $50,000, $60,000? It's all coming out of the public purse. Everyone who
works for the government is the same thing. It's coming out of the public purse;
it's public money. So why is it that we're going to just arbitrarily choose
someone who makes $100,000 a year and say those are the names we're going to put
out there?
Of
course, there's been a lot of people who made it to the sunshine list who don't
make $100,000, but they might have had a one-time, lump-sum payment or something
like that. I've had people contact me about that. Maybe it was overtime. Maybe
there was like this one-time severance payment. There are going to be people who
have never made $100,000 and probably will never make $100,000, but this
one-time, lump-sum severance payment and so on could drive them over the
$100,000 and now their name is there and the salary.
I just
think the whole thing is messed up, to be honest with you. If you're going to do
it in the interest of disclosure, do it for every employee not just certain
employees, and don't go attaching people's names. Positions, salaries, overtime,
all fair game, but putting people's names there I just think is wrong.
With
that said, this is a minor amendment to what we're already doing. I'm not going
to vote against that, but on principle, I just want to stand and say that I
disagree with the way we're doing that.
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.
I won't
take long, but I do want to speak in second reading of course, to Bill 33.
As the
minister pointed out, and my colleagues, what we are doing is making an
amendment to the Public Sector
Compensation Transparency Act
to now add to the group of people whose income will be known
publicly. Employees of the House of Assembly, political support staff and
employees of the associated statutory offices or bodies. For example, Office of
the Citizens' Representative, the Child Advocate, et cetera, to the act through
amendment.
So,
again, sort of as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has said, in
principle, because the act exists, then I do agree that if we had this act then
everybody should be included in the act. That would include the groups that I
just mentioned, but I think there are ways of us being more public with regard
to what exactly the salaries are without getting into individuals.
There
was a time, one of the budget documents was a book that outlined for each
department, for example, how many people were in certain categories, what the
amount of money was for the deputy minister, what the amount of money was for
the associate deputy minister, et cetera. And that was a public document that
was part of the budget documents.
That
information would be there for everybody to see, spelled out, not just a lump
sum for salaries in a department or a lump sum for salaries in a statutory
office, but it would spell out how many people in a certain classification. So
if it was $150,000 in a certain classification and there were three people in
that, you could divide it by three and you'd know what the individual salary
was; or, there is one DM and the salary for the DM was spelled out. I think that
document is something that should be recreated.
I know
what happens when here in the House of the Assembly we're sitting in Estimates
and we ask questions, we can specifically ask for that information and we can
get that information, but the general public is out there and they should be
able to go online and in the budget documents have that kind of a document. Then
it would meet the needs of what my colleague was just speaking about. The
information of how much money is going out for each position would be there, and
people know this individual is that deputy minister, therefore, they know what
that deputy minister is making.
I think
I had a problem from that perspective with this act in the beginning, and it's
still there. As we know, there are groups out there who are not happy with the
identification of individuals, and I think that concern still needs to be
brought here into the House. There are groups who do not agree with the fact of
the individual being identified, that all you need identified is the role of the
individual. As I said, I think that's a serious consideration. It is out there,
we know that it's out there, and I think that needs to be brought into the House
to make that point again.
I do ask
the government to think about the fact that there are ways to make the
information very public, about what people are making, without getting at the
point of naming individuals. It's one thing for us as MHAs, as people, to put
ourselves out there publicly to be elected to have our salaries known, ours is
in legislation, but it's another thing for people who are working for government
to be identified as individuals.
So it is
a point that needs to be considered, and if we did have a budget document that
outlined the kind of information that I'm saying, then that information would be
there for everybody to know. It would be very, very simple. So I just want to
make that point.
Transparency doesn't have to mean the identification of individuals.
Transparency is accountability for how the money is being spent and how we value
various positions in government, and that should be the information that people
are getting. That should be what they should be interested in, and the
information that we should want them to have.
So those
are the main points I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the
opportunity.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat speaks now, he
will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted
to thank the Members opposite for speaking to this piece of legislation and
putting their thoughts forward. We are listening.
I don't
know if you'd call it a housekeeping piece of legislation, but it's not a
complicated piece of legislation. The intent and purpose of the legislation is
very clearly outlined. I look forward to questions when we get in the Committee
stage.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 33 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?
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act. (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency
Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.
MR. SPEAKER:
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 33, An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation
Transparency Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act.” (Bill 33)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
understand in the briefing there was reference to the act to have the Electoral
Boundaries Commission and Mental Health Review Board removed from it. Does this
change the information or is it included in the bill to do that, or is it
something that will be done later?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
No, it's my understanding
neither of those are any longer active. So that's the reason they're being
removed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There
was also reference to the fact that the Schedule of the act will change
Government Purchasing Agency, the Public Procurement Agency reflect the new and
official name of the new entity.
This
change doesn't really affect the information that's being disclosed, but is
there a need to change that name in the bill – because I don't see a reference
to it – or is it just a regulatory change?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, that part of it is
simply housekeeping. We probably wouldn't have brought in a bill in and of
itself simply to do that, but now that we're amending this piece of legislation,
the name of that agency had changed, so it was just as well to clean it up and
make that change while we were doing it.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
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, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Public
Sector Compensation Transparency Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CLERK:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I move, Mr. Chair, that
the Committee rise and report Bill 33.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 33.
Shall
the motion carry?
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 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 33 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 33 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, reported received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, that the House do now
adjourn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.