March 19, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 58
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome all Members back to this House of Assembly. We have some special
guests that I'd also like to identify today. In the Speaker's gallery today, I
would like to welcome Dr. Noreen Golfman, Provost and Vice-President (Academic)
of Memorial University who will be the subject of a Member's statement this
afternoon.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public gallery today,
I would like to welcome William Tetford, Winnie Walsh, Bonita Hussey and Raymond
Hussey from Spaniard's Bay. Mr. Tetford and Ms. Hussey will be the recognized in
a Member's statement today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery, I
would like to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Andy Wells, former Chair of the
Public Utilities Board and also the former Mayor of the City of St. John's.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Placentia
West - Bellevue, Cape St. Francis, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour
Grace - Port de Grave.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Mount Pearl's Frosty Festival – now in
its 37th year. This year the festival was held from February 6 to 17.
The
largest winter festival in Atlantic Canada doesn't just happen. It is the
constant dedication of the great network of more than 500 volunteers and
organizers that makes this event the highlight for the City of Mount Pearl every
year.
This
year we saw a wonderful 12 days of 80-plus events and all reports indicate that
this was the most successful and well-attended Frosty Festival to date. There
was something for everyone to enjoy. Thirty-seven years is truly remarkable and
the festival clearly shows the wonderful sense of community that exists in Mount
Pearl.
To the
sponsors, boards of directors, community groups, community partners, hundreds of
volunteers and all organizations and businesses who supported the event, I thank
you. I thank you all for what you've done over the past 12 months to make the 12
days of Frosty Festival 2019 such a success.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in thanking and congratulating the 37th Annual
Frosty Festival on its tremendous success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize a fierce advocate and fearless leader, a strong woman from the Town of
Terrenceville, Mrs. Rebecca Hickey.
Rebecca
has been a lifelong resident of Terrenceville. The pride she has in her hometown
speaks for itself. She's an advocate of good services and infrastructure, strong
health care and celebrating tourism in the region. She has served on the town
council for over 30 years, including many as mayor. She was re-elected to
council in 2017 municipal election and continues to serve her fellow residents.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, today she is celebrating her 79th birthday and she's celebrating it
by being in St. John's, along with her colleagues in the town council, meeting
with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to advocate for issues concerning their
town. That's her idea of a good birthday, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Earlier today, I had the
opportunity to present Rebecca with her certificate of recognition and thanks
for her years of service to the people and to the Town of Terrenceville.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation, and, of course, in
wishing councillor and former Mayor Rebecca Hickey a happy 79th birthday.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate this year's Easter Seals Newfoundland
and Labrador Ambassador Cassandra McGrath. Cassandra is a 13-year-old girl from
Torbay and is a student at Holy Trinity High. Her energy and enthusiasm has come
from a result of programs at Easter Seals.
Cassandra wants to be an advocate and a role model for persons with disabilities
in this province, as well to increase support for the organization and to
encourage more persons with disabilities to become part of Easter Seals.
As a
member of this year's wheelchair basketball team, she was the glue of the team,
helping to keep everyone together and focused. Cassandra message is even though
you have a disability, you can still have fun and enjoy life.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in wishing Cassandra McGrath all the best as
this year's Easter Seals ambassador, and I am sure she will be a great
spokesperson for Easter Seals.
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 am
delighted to congratulate Dr. Noreen Golfman on being named Woman of the Year by
the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists for advancing
gender equality in the arts.
A
pioneer for women in the film industry, Noreen is the founding director of the
St. John's International Women's Film Festival. The festival is highly
successful, attracting women from all over the world to screen their films in
our province. The festival will celebrate its 30th year this October.
Noreen
also sits as the vice-chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development
Corporation and chair of the board of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
Since 2011, she has co-chaired the board of directors of Business and the Arts
NL.
Noreen
is a full professor in the Department of English who currently serves as the
provost and vice-president (academic) of Memorial University.
I ask
the hon. Members of this House to join with me in congratulating Dr. Noreen
Golfman on receiving ACTRA's Woman of the Year Award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
would like to recognize two outstanding citizens of Spaniard's Bay. William
Tetford enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces in 1960, serving with the United
Nations in Egypt and then in Germany
with NATO forces. Bill returned to Canada in
1971 when he was stationed in Gagetown, New Brunswick where he served at a
medical unit prior to being honourably discharged in 1973.
He has received numerous service awards such as the
Queens Jubilee medal, United Nations peacekeeping medal, NATO service medal,
Queen's commemorative of Canada and more. He is still an active, dedicated Royal
Canadian Legion member in Spaniard's Bay.
Bonita Hussey has become a local YouTube sensation
through her NL traditional cooking show: Bonita's Kitchen. It all started when
her son, who was living in another province, asked her to share a recipe with
him on YouTube for homemade bread. It turns out her son wasn't the only viewer
who took interest.
Then in 2014, Bonita and her husband, Raymond, retired
from their jobs and moved back to Newfoundland and Labrador from the Northwest
Territories. Ever since, they've been cooking up recipes, working on recipes,
videos and a cookbook to promote their YouTube channel.
I ask all hon. Members to certainly congratulate these
residents.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of attending the 63rd Session of the
UN Commission on the Status of Women as part of the Canadian delegation. I had
the opportunity to meet with government officials, community groups and those
with lived experiences from all over the world and to discuss key issues
affecting women and girls.
The Canadian delegation was led by the federal minister for Women and Gender
Equality, the hon. Maryam Monsef. Representatives from civil society and labour
unions from across the country were also in attendance, including leaders from
the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, events I attended covered a range of issues, including the role of
modern technologies in preventing sexual and gender-based violence, the
importance of access to public services in terms of violence prevention and
global commitments to advance women and girls.
I also met with my national colleagues to discuss how we can continue to work
together on initiatives of gender equality and violence prevention in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, this government continues to be committed to advancing the status
of women and girls in our province. These events and discussions from the UN
Commission on the Status of Women nurtured ideas and relationships for the
betterment of women and girls here in our province and around the world.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I truly
believe that when a group of individuals come together, they can join forces to
enact great change. I'm optimistic that gatherings such as the 63rd Session of
the UN Commission on the Status of Women can help to advance solutions for women
and girls all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, our
attention is often given to what lies in the community surrounding us, but we
must not forget the women and girls all throughout the globe who are facing
challenges. The UN Commission is a unique group which allows the challenges and
solutions to be shared among those trying to make a difference.
I hope
that the minister and those attending from the province are able to bring key
information and best practices back to the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. It's great that the minister had a chance to attend the UN
meeting, but unless she is committed to real action for the women of
Newfoundland and Labrador it is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Women's
groups across the province have been pushing for pay equity, an increase in
minimum wage –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– to $15 and funding for the
Norpen Aboriginal Women's Circle proposal for a women's centre in Port Saunders.
A key
issue in women fleeing violent situations is lifting women and children out of
poverty. That is committing to really advancing the status of women and girls in
this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to recognize the opening of Beaver Brook Antimony Mine
in Central Newfoundland –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
– creating approximately 100
new jobs for the people of the province.
On March
8, I had the pleasure of joining the Premier, my colleagues, including the
Minister of Health and Community Services, and representatives of Beaver Brook
mine and China Minmetals Rare Earth Group for the official opening ceremony and
to celebrate this significant announcement for the people of the region and the
mining industry as a whole.
Mr.
Speaker, some 160,000 tons of antimony ore per year will be mined at full
production and processed into concentrate. The direct and indirect impacts of
Beaver Brook mine will felt throughout the area, demonstrating that by working
together, we are able to unlock our natural resource wealth and create new
opportunities for tradespeople, engineers and many other fields.
The
reopening of Beaver Brook mine is another example of how our plan,
Mining the Future 2030 is working to grow Newfoundland and Labrador's mining
industry and, in the process, create jobs throughout the province in
collaboration with communities, Indigenous governments and the industry.
Mining
is a major contributor to our economy. In 2019, the mining sector is forecasted
to employ a total of 6,300 people – an 11 per cent increase from 2018. Also, the
gross value of mineral shipments in Newfoundland and Labrador is forecasted at
$4 billion for 2019, a 47 per cent increase since 2016.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, a world of
possibilities is at doorstep because our geology positions Newfoundland and
Labrador to be a global supplier of minerals. We are very pleased with China
Minmetals Rare Earth Group's continued interest in Central Newfoundland and we
hope for a long, safe and prosperous future for the company, its workers and its
communities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the copy of her statement. The reopening of Beaver Brook
Antimony Mine is great news for the mining community of this province. It's a
welcome addition to the Central Newfoundland economy. The approximately 100 new
jobs in the region are certainly significant. I congratulate officials with
Beaver Brook mine and China Minmetals Rare Earth Group on their reopening.
Mr.
Speaker, mining development starts with geoscience and exploration. I'd like to
take a moment to encourage the minister to help keep this in mind as the
government makes decisions on the upcoming budget. I urge you to ensure that
geoscience and exploration programs are continued for the benefit of the
industry throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy. It's good to see this mine reopened and
good to see the creation of 100 new jobs with all the economic spin-off benefits
which will ensue for the region. Media reports the company who owns the mine is
concerned with hiring enough qualified labour to ensure they get up to full
production. I hope government programs will help with that.
There
also seem to be questions about the life of the mine. Conflicting media reports
project the lifespan to be 3½ or 15. I ask the minister: How long will it be?
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has stated the Department of Justice covered
the cost of legal fees he incurred while being investigated by the commissioner
for Members' interests for alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.
By what
authority would the Justice Department cover the legal fees of a Member?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As was
reported in the media last week, the legal fees coming through, I guess we'll
call the situation, did come to the Department of Justice and would have been
referred to an assistant deputy minister. After, I guess, a significant period
of time, a number of Members involved in this situation brought their legal fees
to the Management Commission who has voted to ensure that all Members are
compensated for legal fees incurred in this matter.
What I
can advise is that now that the procedure has been established, this bill that
would have been incurred by the legal counsel for the Member, it's going to be
sent to the Management Commission to be dealt with by Management Commission as
the other bills were.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the hon. minister for
that information.
I take
it then that the minister is confirming something that was said by the Speaker
publicly when he stated I can tell you the Management Commission has not
reimbursed him and that would be the only venue for him to seek and receive
revenue.
The
minister is confirming that, is he?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No,
there are situations where Members of this House have been dealt with. In fact,
former Premier Dunderdale was actually sued in civil court at one point and her
legal bills were dealt with by the department.
The fact
is that when this matter happened there was no process by which – again, the
Management Commission had not seen this. Now what we have is a situation – we're
coming out of this. There will be, from the Privileges and Elections Committee,
brought forward a procedure to handle situations like this in the future.
In the
meantime, since all this has happened, the Management Commission has covered the
legal fees for all Members involved in this process and that will soon be
looking at the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands legal bills as well.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, the media is reporting that the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands
requested his legal fees be covered the day after he was removed from Cabinet
and the Liberal caucus.
Can the
minister state whether that is the case?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot
state for certain exactly what day this would have happened. The procedure is
there would have been a conversation, and the same as I would do in any case, I
immediately referred it to the assistant deputy minister for this matter. After
that, the matter went through that process. There would have been – looked at by
policy, was examined, a decision made. In fact, when the bill was paid, I wasn't
even aware that it had happened.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
There may be an issue with my
hearing, but I wonder if the minister can confirm what he just said.
Did he
state that the bill was paid?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my
understanding that the legal fees incurred by the Member have been paid. I
wouldn't even be able to tell you the date. The fact is that the department
often handles outside counsel when it comes to any number of legal matters,
whether it's departments, Members, you name it. It's anywhere in the range of $3
million to $7 million on an annual basis.
What I
can say is I'm not aware when these bills are paid. That's handled throughout
the department and under the auspices of the assistant deputy minister
responsible for that particular heading.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Can the minister state
whether the payment was carried out pursuant to a minute in council or an order
in council?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I
cannot confirm if it was either of those. Again, it was handled as for the
department. Once the request came in, all I did was simply refer it on. It's not
a decision that I make per se, usually we let public servants handle those types
of issues. The same as any minister that has been served with civil litigation
papers, it's handled by the civil staff.
What I
can say, and I guess the underlying or overlying message here is that at the end
of the day, the Management Commission has made a decision to ensure that legal
fees for all Members involved in this process, Members from both sides,
complainants and respondents, have been covered by the Management Commission
under this matter; and, at the end of the day, it all comes from the same pot of
money, which would be the Treasury.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the
minister, as a Member of the Management Commission, will be able to acknowledge
that what the Management Commission decided was to pay the legal fees, within
reason, of those who submitted them. This particular Member did not do so.
Was an
invitation extended to the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, who is also a
minister at this time, to provide her legal bill to the Department of Justice?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No
invitations were extended to anybody in this particular case. At that time in
the process, a conversation was had, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, the
minister at the time, passed this matter on to the department. It went through
that process.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Did the minister or his officials contact the Speaker or the Speaker's office or
others in the House of Assembly regarding the request prior to or subsequent to
the payment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
sure what the Member is going at here. No, I had no contact with the Speaker or
other Members of the House. This is a request that came into the department. It
was handled as per course.
The fact
is since that time – as the Member knows, the Leader of the Official Opposition
sits on the Management Commission. They have looked at the claims that have come
in and made a decision to pay the legal fees for each Member incurred. At this
time, now that a procedure has been established, I'm sure that the fee from the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands will go to Management Commission, because at
the end of the day, this all comes from the same pot of money, which would be
the general Treasury.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Could the minister oblige us by explaining how it is that the procedure we were
all familiar with at the Management Commission for dealing with legal fees
submissions of Members was not followed in this particular case and he did not
inform the Management Commission thereof?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
sure if the Member opposite is trying to question whether I informed the
Management Commission or something. I'm not sure if he's trying to imply
something here, because if he is, he should be a little more clear with what he
is saying.
The fact
is a request came in to the department, it was handled. In fact, once I made the
initial request of information to the department I literally had no other
dealings with that matter at any point and did not know where that matter was
going. I sat on Management Commission and dealt with that process, and that's
basically what I can inform the House at this point.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, this province is
contemplating significant auto insurance changes and the Insurance Bureau of
Canada is now pursuing a marketing campaign to push for caps on minor injuries
as a way to moderate rates.
Is the
minister aware that the IBC acknowledges that its marketing campaign has been
using a comparison of rates between New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador
which is stale and needs updating?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very
well aware of the media. My staff and myself have been very involved in this
file, and we've met with numerous groups and organizations. We are following the
media. We have a 166-page document from the PUB, which is a very comprehensive
document. There is significant information available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I fear that this
recent information about recent rate hikes in New Brunswick is not available
from the PUB report. They have an injury cap system similar to what the
insurance industry wants this government to impose on drivers here.
Is the
minister aware that between 2016 and now most insurance companies in New
Brunswick have raised rates or applied to raise rates very substantially?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very
well aware of the information that is available to us, myself and my staff, and
we have a process to work through here.
The
Member opposite is very well aware of how legislation is brought into this House
of Assembly, and we will use all information that we can obtain and that's
available to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I take it then that the
minister is aware of the CBC story posted on March 15 which cites the example of
New Brunswick's largest insurer which has raised prices by 23 per cent since
2016 and says it needs another 16 per cent increase.
Will the
minister undertake to the House she will fully inform herself of the situation
with respect to recent rate increases in New Brunswick?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we
will, I will and my staff will. And if the Member opposite happens to have any
information that he feels that I don't have or my staff don't have, I would
certainly welcome him to table it here in this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, media reported that a consulting firm headed up by the former deputy
minister of Natural Resources had been given a sole-source contract by Nalcor
valued at $336,000 a year.
I ask
the minister: Did Nalcor consult you on this so-called sole-source, specialized
service contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
speak to the company of Aberdeen International Associates. The former deputy
minister of Natural Resources is a globally recognized leader in oil and gas
development and had significant dealings with the re-establishment of the United
Kingdom, for example, in the oil and gas industry, and he worked very diligently
in the department to attract new investment, to bring projects under line, and
to move forward with Advance 2030.
So, he
has a global reputation and is doing contract work for Nalcor oil and gas
company. Under contract, his firm, Aberdeen International Associates, is well
regarded and well known.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all Members, please,
there's to be one conversation on the floor – the Members in the corner, thank
you, one conversation in Question Period, please.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why did
the minister support Nalcor hiring a consultant at $336,000 without a
competition to pursue the Advance 2030
strategy? Surely there is someone already within our oil and gas sector in this
province who has the experience to fill this position.
Why not
go and advertise the position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say that the direction that we're taking with oil and gas is to really drive the
growth of the industry and we really want to make sure that Newfoundland and
Labrador maximizes its opportunity.
We have
said in Advance 2030, for example, we
want to drive from 230,000 barrels a day to over 650,000 barrels a day. That's
significant growth that'll bring tremendous opportunities to the province in
terms of jobs and growth opportunities, as well as taxation and royalty
benefits.
So,
having that international expertise, that global awareness, is very, very
important. We compete around the world for the investments that are being made,
and we certainly will continue to do so.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
industry is global in nature and the people that work in there are global as
well, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So I ask
the minister specifically: What specialized services did this individual have
that disallowed you from going for a public competition for people here in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, the individual that the Member opposite is referring to is globally known.
He has been a leader in the oil and gas industry for some 30 years. He's very
familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador's opportunity. Nalcor does budget its
own consultation. This is within that budget, its own consultation services. I
think it will be beneficial to the people of the province to have a global
industry leader to continue to advance the opportunities within the oil and gas
industry.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, it's my understanding the former deputy minister, as a consultant, will
be making more than the current vice-president responsible for the entire Oil
and Gas division.
I ask
the minister: How does she justify a consultant making more than the individual
responsible for the entire oil and gas portfolio?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I don't believe his
information is correct, Mr. Speaker, but I will say this, again, Nalcor budgets
for its own consulting services and this is within their consulting budget. They
make those decisions around the consultants they require and around the payment
that they are going to make.
I will
say this, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador deserves to grow
its oil and gas industry, to advance its opportunities to really drive both
royalties and equity and taxation benefits to the people of this province, as
well as to have a robust jobs that are well known in the industry. And we've
talked about that in Advance 2030.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, the former deputy minister, our understanding, will work from Scotland
and will travel back and forth to Newfoundland to continue to serve on the oil
and gas council and continue to travel for the MOUs signed with Guyana and that
industry there.
I ask
the minister: What is the anticipated travel cost over and above the $336,000
salary?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my
understanding that this is a total contract. So whoever is employed within
Aberdeen International Associates will have to work within that total budget,
Mr. Speaker.
I will
say this, we did talk at length last week about the expanded role of the new oil
company, looking at growing the supply and service industry which will bring
increased opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador, and making sure that
we're really taking advantage of all the opportunities we have in our offshore
oil and gas sector.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial Conflict of Interest Act states: A person who within the
previous year was a public office holder shall not enter into a contract to
receive benefit from an agency or the Crown with which he was employed within
the previous year.
The
former deputy minister has been given a conflict of interest waiver by Cabinet
through an OC.
I ask
the minister: Why did she feel it was necessary to ask her Cabinet colleagues to
waive the conflict of interest regulations, legislation and the rule in place
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Waivers
under the Conflict of Interest Act are not uncommon. They do occur. You have to
remember that this individual, through his company, Aberdeen International
Associates, will be working for a Crown corporation. That Crown corporation has
an expanded role, a role to help us continue to grow and develop our offshore
oil and gas industry.
Therefore, it made sense to waive that conflict of interest. It's not uncommon,
as I say, Mr. Speaker. It happens all the time. But, remember, it's with a Crown
corporation, so a lot of the work that he would have been known to have been
doing within the department is not in conflict with what he will be doing with
the Crown corporation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
government committed to implementing a single entry Medical Transportation
Assistance Program and proudly reported in
The Way Forward document that it is completed. Yet, we are hearing many
stories of problems with the new program where people have missed or have had to
reschedule medical appointments, as well encountering various other delays.
I ask
the Premier: Is this the standard he expects in implementing
The Way Forward commitments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
Medical
transportation is a significant issue in this province and we have amalgamated
to pre-existing programs. I will admit there were challenges, and I'm not here
to defend things that shouldn't be defended, but essentially we have rectified
those. We are now down to a 48-hour turnaround for all urgent requests for
transportation and two weeks for everything else. We have 750,000 claims for
travel each year, Mr. Speaker. We are making a difference and we'll get better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Way Forward
states that the changes to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program was to
improve the efficiency and timelines of services. Given what we have seen the
changes were hastily implemented, service delivery has not improved and, in
fact, has worsened.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Isn't this another example of a failed forward by
this government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question and the strained alliteration.
From my
point of view, Mr. Speaker, we have come through a difficult transition. We have
a turnaround time of 48 hours for emergency requests for transportation, two
weeks for everything else. We have 300 calls a day; 750,000 visits a year. We
have enormous opportunities now to look at how to make this service a lot better
to meet the medical needs of people and be less like a bus service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the
minister admit that the new cataract surgery policy announced almost two months
ago was really just an election ploy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
changes we have made to the cataract surgery is an issue of access. We heard
very clearly from ophthalmologists, from people in various parts of the
province, that they wanted this. This now gives people the option to have the
surgery done in accredited, private offices, as well as an RHA facility if
that's the way they want to go.
We will
have the regulations changed. We are in active negotiations with the NLMA,
almost on a weekly basis around the fee structure. We will have this done and
done shortly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding is the policy can be implemented as soon as a billing fee code is
in place.
Why
doesn't the minister take immediate action to reduce red tape that is preventing
people from getting cataract surgery more quickly?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue is not one of red tape. It's about patient safety. It's about
accreditation. Those are not bureaucratic issues to be skipped or pushed aside.
We have
just renovated the Patient Safety Act
in this province and brought in a landmark piece of legislation. That is a key
piece of this. That will be done. The due diligence will be done. The fee code
issue is an ongoing matter of negotiation with the NLMA and we're working on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After
talking to a number of the cataract surgeons here, there's never been a patient
safety issue here. It's about moving it to the next level so that more expedient
approaches and access to cataract surgery can be offered.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister alleged publicly that there were potential criminal
activities related to physicians providing cataract surgery outside of a
hospital; yet, a recent Supreme Court ruling found that it was not illegal for
physicians, like Dr. Chris Jackman, to remove cataracts in private clinics.
Will the
minister do the right thing and publicly apologize to Dr. Chris Jackman?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite continues to mix up two entirely separate issues. The issue of
cataracts being performed outside of an RHA facility is one we are actively
working on and are making progress on and will have that done in short order.
The
other issue was an issue of public concern brought to my department about what
seemed to be charges that no one could explain around what was supposedly a
publicly insured service. They are two separate issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Supreme Court would differ with your opinion of the outcome.
Mr.
Speaker, last month the Supreme Court ruled that the Health Research Ethics
Board should render decisions on applications in 30 days, rather than the six
months to a year it takes. The minister previously refused to get involved in
this issue.
Will the
minister finally be proactive and take steps to improve these timelines?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Indeed,
I've met with both. One of the applicants for research there, Sequence Bio, as
well as the Health Research Ethics agency itself. There are amendments proposed
to the Health Research Ethics act; it is due for its five-year review.
We take
to heart the ruling from the court, and we have committed extra resources to the
HREA to improve their timelines. They now have a separate committee, for
example, to deal with genetic and genomic research. We'll continue to do that,
and bring those regulations and amendments to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I quote
the Supreme Court ruling: Fewer studies translates into fewer potential benefits
down the road for the citizens of the province. Valuable medical research in
this province either did not happen or moved to other provinces as a result.
I ask
the minister: What is he going to do to ensure that the people of the province
have access to life-saving medical research?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I could do little more than
repeat my previous answer; but, essentially, we have met with the HREA. We have
given them extra resources. They are working on streamlined processes. We are
meeting the Cancer Care Ontario deadlines now for clinical trials, and we are
working on the genetics and genomics piece, which was a piece of legislation
they brought in to safeguard the interests of the people of this province, and
I'm not going to let them go back on their word.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
seen the impact that this has had on the industry and potential life-saving
research that could've been done here for the people.
I ask
the minister – he's committed to additional resources: Can he outline exactly
what resources he is allocating to the ethics board to improve the services here
and the timelines for ensuring that medical research is done on a timely
fashion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to take a little bit of an issue with the preamble there. There has been a
reduction in some areas of clinical research in this province, but what the
Member opposite fails to take account of is the fact that that has happened
across Canada. It has happened across the globe in certain areas, as the whole
pattern of clinical research has changed from previous, older styles, if you
like, to what's called real world investigations.
We have
committed, and we've brought in successfully with MUN and partnerships there,
significant sums of money to advance that. We are working with the HREA. We have
supplied them with extra staff and resources, and we are committed to bringing
amendments to the act before this House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Last
week we learned that in the event of a failure of the Labrador-Island
Transmission Link there is no agreement with Emera to supply the 300 megawatts
required to supply the Avalon Peninsula at peak winter demand. The minister is
quoted as saying there is an agreement with Emera for 100 megawatts, if they can
spare it.
I ask
the minister: Why doesn't Nalcor have a proper written contractual arrangement
with Emera for the supply of adequate back-up power in the event of a prolonged
outage of Muskrat Falls power?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite is referring to a 2011 report wherein Hydro at the time said
they would make an arrangement with Nova Scotia for 300 megawatts.
Mr.
Speaker, as the Member opposite knows, the Public Utilities Board is currently
reviewing a report by Hydro called the
Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study, that it will review the
requirements should anything happen. I can advise the Member opposite, on a
daily basis we do have an arrangement with Emera and Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker,
we are, on occasion, taking 50 to 100 megawatts, but we will abide by what the
Public Utilities Board says coming out of the Hydro study.
Thank
you.
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.
I say to
the minister, even if it's found out that Nalcor were to access this adequate
supply, does Hydro have the capacity to transmit Nova Scotia power to the Avalon
Peninsula?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, this government
has a tremendous amount of respect for the Public Utilities Board and we
certainly look to the Public Utilities Board to review the reliability and
resource adequacy report that Hydro has submitted to them. We will rely on their
expertise, their knowledge, their competencies to advise as to what should be
done in the event – however unlikely that event might be – in the event that
there is an outage on the Labrador-Island Link.
As the
people of the province know, this is coming on stream in 2020, Mr. Speaker, and
we're currently at present commissioning the Labrador-Island Link.
Thank
you.
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.
I say to
the minister, it's too bad they didn't show their respect for the PUB as soon as
they became government.
Mr.
Speaker, a failure of the LIL in the Long Range Mountains span could take weeks
to repair. Nalcor has said in that event local shedding, better known as rolling
blackouts, would be required. These blackouts would be devastating for the
people and the economy of the Avalon Peninsula.
I ask
the Premier: What plans has he in place to address this possible crisis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
exception to what the Member just said that we haven't, since the beginning of
our mandate here in government, really respected the Public Utilities Board. We
have throughout this entire process. I remind the people of the province, it is
this government that brought the Public Utilities Board back into Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
It was this government who
looked to the Public Utilities Board for their expertise, Mr. Speaker. As I've
advised the Member opposite, we are looking again to the Public Utilities Board
for their expertise. They are currently reviewing the
Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study
provided by Hydro. They are currently looking at that, and when they're finished
they will advise what needs to be done in the unlikelihood that something
untoward should happen.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
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.
The
Consumer Advocate has said unreliable Nova Scotia power in an emergency will
likely mean building new gas turbines at Holyrood to the tune of perhaps $500
million-plus fuel. He noted this flies in the face of the original reasoning for
building Muskrat Falls to replace Holyrood.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Has she plans to buy these gas turbines and
install them at Holyrood? If not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, this government
has said repeatedly that we would never have built Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
And I can tell you the
Premier of this province worked very, very hard to ask the right questions in
this House of Assembly to determine why Muskrat Falls was being delivered at the
very beginning.
I'll
again repeat that the Public Utilities Board, with their expertise, with their
competence, is reviewing the Reliability
and Resource Adequacy Study. They will make the determination of if there
are any requirements coming out of that study, and we'll certainly be listening
to their opinion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling
one order-in-council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the fiscal year
2019-2020.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Pursuant
to section 273(3) of the Elections Act,
1991, I am tabling the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on
Election Finances for January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice of
the following private Member's resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to release its electricity rate mitigation plan without delay.
That
will be seconded by the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
private Member's –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
private Member's resolution introduced by the Member for Windsor Lake will be
the resolution that we'll debate on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
two notices. The first, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act, Bill 59.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I give notice, seconded by the Minister of Natural
Resources, that the composition of the Resource Committee, the Government
Services Committee and the Social Services Committee will be as follows:
The
Government Services Committee will consist of the Members for the following
districts: The Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Conception Bay
South, the Member for Exploits, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for St.
George's - Humber, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, and the Member for Terra Nova.
The
Resource Committee will consist of the Members for the following districts: The
Member for Exploits, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape
La Hune, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the Member for Terra Nova, and the
Member for Topsail - Paradise.
The
Social Services Committee will consist of Members of the following districts:
The Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Fogo Island - Cape
Freels, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for St.
George's - Humber, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Stephenville
- Port an Port, and the Member for Windsor Lake.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
I'd just
like to clarify for the House.
Would
you like to vote on this now or move it in debate later?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
This will require substantive
debate, so we'll discuss it tomorrow.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. COADY:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly,
my back is feeling much better the way I'm jumping up and down here today.
During
Question Period, there was a question about travel, and I answered the question
but I don't think I got it completely correct. So I wanted to make sure I did
that.
Travel
on behalf of the client is reimbursed by the client, so I wanted to make sure I
made that clarification.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
answers to questions for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition:
The Bell
Island ferry service provides a vital transportation link and is only eight
minutes from port at any given time. Transport Canada regulations do not require
individuals to exit their vehicles during the commute and the provincial
government's current policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles puts people
at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the vessel
due to an emergency.
In May
2018, a risk assessment recommended that the Department of Transportation and
Works continue to require passengers to vacate these vehicles while travelling
on the Bell Island Ferry.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to hold public consultations to discuss the
findings of the May 2018 risk assessment for the Bell Island ferry service with
the people of Bell Island.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had an opportunity over the last year and a half since this
policy has been implemented to see the increased risk that this has added to
those travelling, particularly those with medical issues and those who have
mobility issues. We wholeheartedly argue about the fact that the risk is much
higher for liability, the risk is much higher for injury than there would be of
any possibility of ever having to evacuate the vessel in a circumstance that
would dictate that you would have to get to the muster station and use the
lifeboats – keeping in mind, as we outlined here, we're eight minutes from any
given port.
In the
number of outlined evacuations, particularly in the situation we're dealing
with, 91 per cent of them are done either through the main deck, because they go
into either beach or into a wharf, or themselves have a different avenue from
being evacuated. We're not out to open seas. We're not on these processes.
I do
know the minister is very sympathetic, and I know the minister has wanted to
look at what needs to be done. Only a month ago we met with the minister with
two very competent individuals who put together a risk assessment review and
outlined some of the inadequacies in the risk assessment that was done to show
there's a higher risk of exiting your vehicle on a short run, particularly for
those who have medical issues and mobility issues.
We had
professionals, Dr. Will Lorimer and his wife, Carol Lorimer, who have a
background as consultants and who look at risk assessments and did a very
detailed assessment of what was done by the consultant company and outlined a
number of inadequacies and injustices that were done when they didn't address
the key issues. And we've already had a number of potential injuries. We've
already had people talking about legal action against it, but it's about quality
of life. It's about the risks that are being implemented here that doesn't take
into account a higher risk to the crew themselves, to government as a whole, and
to particularly those travelling.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll get to present this again, but we do ask the minister to seriously
take a look, talk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, look at Dr.
Lorimer's report and look at how we come up with a solution that works for the
people of Bell Island, please.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. I do recognize the Lorimers who are here
today. We meet a while back to review this issue, but let me just put it in
context first. This was an independent risk assessment that was completed last
year on behalf of the department and there are a lot of things to consider here
when you think about the fact that the muster stations are on the upper deck of
the vessel and the vehicles are on a lower deck.
I do
sympathize with some of the stories that I've heard around this and I think
there is a conversation here yet to be had. We're still looking at it as a
department. I do recognize the Member opposite, I discuss this issue quite
regularly and it's one that I can assure him that, as a department, we're still
looking at.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition: Newfoundland and Labrador is the only
province to still require an assessment and referral from the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health's (CAMH) Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto; the wait
time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years; in recent
years, other provinces have improved their in-province assessment and referral
processes, in addition to increasing coverage and funding for gender-affirming
surgeries; without adequate MCP coverage, these surgeries can cost thousands of
dollars; the Department of Health and Community Services is already engaged in
investigating an in-province assessment and referral process; long wait times
for gender-affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria
and worsened mental health; among transgender youth age 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2
per cent considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least one suicide attempt
in the last year according to a 2014 Trans Youth Health Survey.
THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Develop an in-province assessment
process for gender-affirming surgeries that would eliminate the need for an
assessment by CAMH as the sole referral option; increase funding and coverage
for gender-affirming surgeries through MCP; expand the types of surgeries
covered to better reflect national standards.
Mr.
Speaker, these are some of the most disadvantaged, ignored, misunderstood people
in our province and they have been pushing and pushing for this with the
previous administration and now this administration. This Minister of Health has
been in his portfolio now for 3½ years and he has paid lip service to this.
I
believe he wants to do this but, Mr. Speaker, there's no reason on this earth
why this is taking so long. It involves people's lives. When we see how
important this assessment is – and again, we are the only province in the
country that is using CAMH as its sole assessor. It's costing the province more
money. It's costing our individual citizens more money and it is costing our
individual citizens increasing amounts of stress.
The
curious thing is that this won't cost the province any money. As a matter of
fact, it will save them money. But this just keeps being left on the backburner
as if these people don't matter.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know what it would take for the minister to do this. He says
it's imminent, but we've been talking for years. I've given him names of health
providers who could do this a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, surely heavens, the
minister can answer this plea.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
The background to the
petition reads as follows:
WHEREAS
the successful proponents of the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to
be announced this spring with construction anticipated to begin this fall and,
as this is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and as there is
experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that
are awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourers, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own
area, support the local economy and be able to return home to their families
every evening.
Mr.
Speaker, we're getting more and more petitions coming in every day because this
is a big issue on the whole West Coast. As I said before, and I'm sure all the
Members in the area are concerned, they want local people hired, local skilled
people to do a great job, to spend time home.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll give the government the opportunity because I have it from a good
source, a very good source – there's a couple of companies that are out right
now that I guess are going to be subletting and the steel that they are putting
out tenders on and bids on, the steel is for 2020, not 2019. I'll give the
minister the opportunity to stand up and say construction will start this fall
as committed for a number of years.
Again,
I'm just putting it out there because I was told by a very good source that the
quotes that they're getting right now for steel is for 2020, not 2019. Before I
make any further comments, I'll let someone on the government side to respond to
it because I don't want to go out and set off alarm bells and things like that.
So, I'm
putting it out there. The people that came to me are in the know, and the people
who are affected will be affected personally by this. They just want the
information and the exact timing, because there was a commitment that this would
be awarded this year and construction started in 2019. I'm assuming, by all
accounts, that the government will fulfill that commitment to start construction
this year. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be doing my duty as an MHA if I didn't put
that out there and let the government respond to it.
To all
the local workers, Mr. Speaker, I'm confident that the fiasco that happened with
the long-term care and the person who the government appointed to be their
spokesperson, who committed that they'll be hired was never hired, so it will
not happen to me again. This is why I'm going to bring this up on a regular
basis to ensure that the government is well aware that the local people need the
work here.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to present this petition on behalf of constituents in my area.
The
Witless Bay Line, Route 13, is a significant piece of transportation
infrastructure. It's a main highway and it plays a major role in the commercial
and residential growth to the region.
THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly to upgrade and perform
immediate maintenance to this significant piece of infrastructure to ensure
safety of drivers and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada
Highway to Route 10 on the Southern Shore.
This is
a piece of infrastructure I've spoken on several times here in the House over
the past couple of years in regard to upgrading. Prior to 2015, there were two
sections of highway that were done. It was just under $2 million that was done,
one on the farther end close to the Trans-Canada Highway, and one on the other
side close to Route 10. We had expected over the four years since that there
would be certainly intermittent periods of upgrades which is required.
As I
said, there are a significant amount of people that use that, commercial use,
also those that travel back and forth for work in various industrial sites on
the other side – a significant piece of infrastructure.
I know
the minister – I made him aware of it actually a couple of years ago in regard
to some of the conditions. To my understanding, he did tell me he did review it,
went in, viewed it himself and saw some of the highway. At that time, they'd
indicated that they would take a look. To date, there's no upgrades being done.
Again, I got a lot of calls over the past week and 10 days in regard to large
potholes, large craters really, and dangerous certainly in the nighttime, people
spoiling tires, and certainly the safety of the overall public.
So, at
the very least, I call on the minister to get some immediate repairs done, to
get this into their so-called Roads Program. I've tried and tried again to find
out where this road is rated, because the way their Roads Program works if
you're not selected, the road is not rated.
So we
don't know this piece of infrastructure, 24-odd kilometres, which is a
significant link to the Southern Shore, where it's even rated and why it's not
had attention over the past four years. I certainly call on the minister to
address this, the immediate needs and look at, in this construction season,
doing something to enhance it and meeting the needs of the people in the region.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes a
mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in
long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing
persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating
conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,
proper hygiene care and all other related care. This law would include creation
of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention
as required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, I've presented this now numerous times. Originally, in the last sitting
of the House, myself and the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi met with
the group, Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights, who presented us with a
petition with 6,000 names and we divided them up in two bundles and we each
presented 3,000 each. This time around, we were sent more petitions and the
group has asked that as opposed to presenting them all together, we're getting
them in dribs and drabs and so on, and they want us to present them on a daily
basis.
So when
I stand here on a daily basis raising this issue, I'm doing so on behalf of
those people. It's not me standing up here raising it on a daily basis, it's
those people who have seniors in long-term care that have concerns about
staffing. Those are the people who want this raised on a daily basis.
So when
the minister stands up, which he may or may not do again today, and say that I
am doing a disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by raising
these important issues, it is not I that he is saying is doing the disservice,
it's the families of the people in long-term care who he feels is doing a
disservice by raising these important issues around staffing for their loved
ones.
We have
to remember, it could be my parents or yours. It could be our grandparents. It
could be one of us one of these days. It's important to ensure that there's
appropriate staffing in place in these facilities to make sure that people are
being fed, that people are being bathed properly, that they're not lying for
extended periods of time after soiling themselves and so on, and that there's
someone in place to make sure people with dementia, Alzheimer's disease are not
going to be harming themselves or somebody else.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service Newfoundland, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57, 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 Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” carried. (Bill 57)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 57)
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 57 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 Newfoundland and Labrador, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, Bill 58,
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 Municipal Affairs and Environment shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act,
2012, Bill 58, 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,
that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012,” carried. (Bill
58)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Regional Service Boards Act, 2012. (Bill 58)
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 58 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 Municipal Affairs and Environment, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of Whole to consider Bill 51.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 51.
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 (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.” (Bill 51)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Well, Madam Chair, I guess in
reflection of the last week's dialogue, I had an opportunity to ponder that over
the weekend, and the weather also afforded me the opportunity to clean up around
the yard. And by the time I had cleaned up, there was quite a pile of manure,
and that brought me back to the minister's statement.
So I'm
going to ask: Minister, did you consider the impact of this on corporate farm
structure?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
What your considerations?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
I think he seeks a more
fulsome answer than that, Madam Chair.
I
believe the question, there may be a lead-in or this could be a segue to a
larger event which may follow. So I will say that this amendment allows for good
corporate governance, good corporate management, as well as individual
management of farms, both whether it be sole partnerships or corporate
structures.
The
amendment in question that we're here in the Committee of the Whole to discuss
is to allow farmers, those who hold agricultural leases, Crown lands, to be able
to clear that land, clear trees in particular, forest resources from that land,
and to do so, if they so choose, without a required prerequisite requirement of
having a commercial forestry permit.
As we
know, Madam Chair, right now under the
Forestry Act those who would engage in a sale of timber resources in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be required to hold a commercial
forestry permit. That is to ensure the good management, good practices and the
regulated practices of our forest industry. It allows for a trail of compliance
to be able to audit but, as well, to enforce those initiatives.
What we
have recognized, what we have found from the agricultural community of our
province is that there is another nuance, another circumstance which must be
addressed, which is there are farmers who gain control of farming property,
farming land, who need, of course, to be able to cultivate that land, would have
to be able to clear those trees. At this point in time, and prior to now, that
would require a commercial forestry permit whether or not a commercial sale of
those resources was being contemplated.
What
this amendment provides is for those farmers who would otherwise clear that
land, if they do not intend a commercial sale of those timber resources, they
can simply harvest those resources and use them on site, on property. Now, the
question might become: Is it necessary for them to still hold a commercial
forestry permit should they bring those resources off farm? The answer is, right
now, yes, because there would no compliance mechanism. Enforcement officials
would not be able to determine where that fibre had come from and whether or not
it was, basically, a step around, doing through the backdoor what you could not
do through the front door.
We
anticipate that we will bring in future regulations that require additional
thought processes we have established – by amending the statute, Madam Chair, we
creating and we're setting the table to be able to create the legal authorities
to amend regulations. That does require some additional thought, some additional
consultation with the industry itself, both with the agricultural industry and
the forestry industry because the objective here is not to recognize that the
table or the playing field is uneven and then to correct it by creating a
separate and different unevenness to a different sector.
We
accept and we agree that, after consultations with the industry, the
agricultural industry have said the table is uneven; we have to have a forestry
permit in order to be able to harvest fibre from our agricultural lands. This is
not in any way, shape or form intended to be for commercial sale, so we are
seeking an exemption, they said, from the act which we are now providing. But,
on the same end, if we were then to provide an exemption for farmers, for
agriculturalists, to be able to harvest trees from a significant portion of the
land but then to able to do so, without the requirements of a commercial
forestry permit and then use it for commercial sale, that would create an
unevenness in and of itself.
This
amendment is well balanced. It meets the objectives, which is to allow farmers
to be able to harvest wood and to dispose of that wood on their own properties
without the requirements of a commercial forestry permit.
Now,
should the property, should the wood itself be used for outside of the property,
should the corporate structure, should the corporate owner of the farm or the
sole proprietor of the farm wish to use the wood for a non-farm purpose that, of
course, would be conceivably viewed by the Canada Revenue Agency as a taxable
benefit.
The
company or the corporate entity providing a taxable benefit to the farmer,
should they use it, should the farm itself bequeath or gift property of the
farm, then to be used for a purpose outside of the farm, that may – I'm not a
taxation lawyer or an accountant, but it would seem to those who would be
engaged in that process to trigger some of the requirements or some of the
jurisprudence of creating a taxable benefit to the user.
That's
why, Madam Chair, it is so, so important to get this right. We've set the table
well. We're amending the statute itself to be able to allow for consequential
regulations to be put in place that could allow a disposal or a sharing of some
of the wood on a non-commercial basis, but right now the objective here is, that
which is for a commercial purpose, wood, fibre that is harvested for a
commercial purpose would be governed and regulated under commercial forestry
permits. Wood fibre which is not to be intended for a commercial purpose or have
no further commercial concerns related to taxation would be governed simply
under an amendment of the Forestry Act
which would allow the farmer to harvest the wood and then apply that to the use
and to the benefit of their farms.
Thank
you so, so, much, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Madam Chair, if the minister
could clarify a couple of statements he just made. Basically I understood, and I
stand to be corrected, that if the wood harvested on a particular Crown lease is
removed from that Crown lease, is that still exempt under this proposed
amendment, or is a permit required for the removal of that wood to another
property or public grounds?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
That's what would be a matter
of the regulations itself. We could foresee a transfer between an entity within
the farm itself, within the farm. If a farm has two pieces of land, I can
contemplate at this point in time that there would be an opportunity and flow
within the corporate entity itself to move from one area of the farm to a
separate piece of land, to transport it to a separate piece of farm. It would be
then, the key element to this, which we would be very sensitive to, is
enforceability.
Just as
farmers would not want to have a situation where others could be able to engage
in their line of business without the proper regulation and controls, foresters
would not want that as well. The objective here is not to even out a currently
uneven playing field by simply creating a further unevenness in another
direction.
So if it
were to be gifted to an outside party, for example, that would be a
contravention of the spirit and the intent of what is being done here today.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to your recent
comments about gifting, through the briefing – which I thank you for – your
department official was quite clear that gifting was not going to be permitted.
So could
you clarify if gifting is going to be a consideration? So, I, as a farmer, or a
farmer harvests the wood off their property, are they indeed allowed to give it
to a charity or a case of charity?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
No, the official was indeed
correct, Madam Chair, that gifting would be within – the current statutory
amendment, which is being contemplated by the House, would provide an
opportunity for the farmer or the corporate entity of the farm, or the sole
proprietor or partnership of the farm to be able to harvest the wood without
applying for and receiving a commercial forestry permit or commercial
authorization by the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources for the purposes
of using the wood on the farm itself or within the corporate structure within
the farm structure.
But
gifting is not – not – entitled under this particular act. By removing a
permanent structure – and this is the important point. You can provide wood. If
you're a commercial harvester or a domestic harvester, you apply for a permit
and you receive the permit. If you then subsequently gift the wood to someone
else, you provide a written authorization to the benefactor that this wood was
harvested under this commercial forestry permit.
So there
is a notion there – but under the commercial forestry permits itself, gifting is
restricted. So where there is an actual possibility of providing a paper trail,
a demonstration that there is a legal entitlement on a commercial forestry
permit, if you are to sell the wood then the purchaser of the wood must be able
to demonstrate that they have accessed to the wood legally and they're entitled
to do so, and such would be the case here.
So by
exempting the farmer from any sort of permitting, there is no record of any
requirement or any permit or any authorization to be able to gift the wood in
that particular case, there would no indication whether or not this wood would
be achieved –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. BYRNE:
I'm not sure, Madam Chair, if
you might want to break in here at any point in time so that we can hear each
other think.
With
that said, there would be no written authorization to audit or to be able to
ensure that enforcement officers can check as to whether or not this wood was
legally obtained. That would create a situation where, as you can foresee, Madam
Chair, that anyone at that point in time could say, when approached by a
conservation officer and asked under what authority do you hold or possess this
wood, they could simply say I got it from a farm and it was gifted, so therefore
there is nothing you can do to enforce whether or not this particular wood was
honourably obtained.
That's
one of the key differences here, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
In the case where the farmer
or the developer of the property, the agriculturalist, harvests the timber and
deems it suitable for sawlogs and wishes to use for construction on a farm, what
would be the minister and department's perspective as to how that wood would
leave the property, go to a commercial sawmill, be milled into usable lumber and
returned to the farm? Is there any consideration of that situation?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
That's an interesting
proposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We're
having trouble hearing the speakers.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
One of
the things that the farmer could do is they could apply themselves for roughly
$30, I think, is the current rate to be able to apply for sawmilling permit.
They could do that on site.
It's a
very good question. We're getting into the fine details of this as to exactly
what would be the capacity to be able to take it off site, bring it to a
commercial establishment and then modify, process the wood, and then revert it
to the farm for an on-site use.
I'll
endeavour to get back to the Member on that particular question.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I'm still a little bit
confused on the corporate farm structure. Could the minister address whether
corporate farm shareholders will be exempt under this legislation amendment?
Will they be allowed to cut wood for their own personal use?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
No, Madam Chair. The wood
would have to be used on the farm itself. I would remind the hon. Member that he
or she would then be subject to CRA reporting in taxation. If a farm were to
award wood to an individual equity holder, shareholder, of a corporate
structured farm then, of course, it would become a taxable benefit.
There
would be two issues there that the hon. Member would have to consider if you
were to be giving advice to other farmers. One is that the wood is subvent for
use on farm work. If you trace back to where the wood was sourced and
originated, and if it were to be transferred to the personal use of one of the
corporate shareholders, there'd be two considerations that would have to be
made: The wood itself would have left the property in violation of the
Forestry Act; but, secondly, there
would be a taxable benefit that would accrue to the shareholder as a gift from
the farm for the personal benefit of the corporate holder.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
While I appreciate the
minister's understanding of federal regulations – as I understand he's had
several decades of listening in Ottawa – I really think that we need to clarify
that.
When you
go to a private ownership, a sole proprietorship, for example, is that the
holder of that lease? Are they allowed to use the material, the wood, the fibre
in their own personal woodstoves or for their own construction of their personal
residence?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Madam Chair, I think the
issue is well clarified. I think what the hon. Member is asking for is for a
change, for an amendment. Currently, if the wood is taken off property and used
for a support purpose other than for the benefit or for to be maintained on the
farm itself, it would be in contravention of the statute. There is not
regulatory capacity at this point in time to be able to accommodate that.
I have
told the hon. Member, as I've told the farming community generally, that
consistent with the consideration of that which is commercial must remain as a
commercial regulation; that which is non-commercial must be non-commercial. But
again, if that were to be the case, that the individual in question would
receive a taxable benefit, it would have to be reported to the Canada Revenue
Agency as included as a taxable benefit on their income tax form, which I'm sure
the hon. Member would be very attuned and quite anxious to ensure his own
compliance with that requirement.
But with
that said, Madam Chair, if again, given that there is a requirement to have an
element of traceability, to be able to ensure enforceability, we cannot even an
uneven playing field by just simply taking six inches off of one leg of the
table when we're trying to correct another leg which is short by four.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Okay, so without fairly
considerable background regulations, this amendment really provides nothing more
than the opportunity for the farmer to use the harvested wood as fence posts or,
I guess, rudimentary construction.
There
are no regulations around, or a provision to bring it to a sawmill. The farmer
themselves cannot consume the wood for heating their own personal residence. The
developer of the property cannot also transfer from one Crown lease to another,
as there's no method to document where that wood came from.
Madam
Chair, there have been several court cases in recent years in which the
department has actually brought farmers, who were clearing land, to court, and
basically tried to punish them for what they were doing with the wood. These
court cases, fortunately, were unsuccessful.
I ask the minister – we need to clarify the details. I'll refer to the
old adage: The devil is in the details. We need the details to come quickly
after this amendment is put in place. Can he assure that will happen?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Yes, Madam Chair, we will.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 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.
CHAIR:
An Act To Amend The Forestry
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.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Deputy House Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 51.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 51.
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
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 51 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 her to report Bill 51 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, reported received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time,
presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third
reading of Bill 51.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Labrador West, that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,
be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to speak to this, while it seems as if it's a very small change and a very small
amendment to the bill, we really need to look at the effectiveness of this.
Through my questioning in Committee, I see that there hasn't been a whole lot of
thought put into the background of how this is going to be administered, how
this is going to be applied and, again, I really question whether this is just
another tick box amendment to legislation.
Just
listening to the minister's comments on Thursday past, his concept of
agriculture is very politically theatrical and a little bit out of touch with
the reality of what's happening on farms. One of his comments was: I encourage
everybody to get out on farms. Well, do you know what? I think he should follow
his own advice, maybe spend a couple of days out there working in the farm and
he'll realize what it actually takes to clear a property and to take it from a
raw piece of land and turn it into something productive.
When the
minister speaks of that we're only 10 per cent self-sufficient in food; that is
100 per cent of the food we eat. I would aspire that we will not see sufficient
climate change in our lifetimes to enable farmers of this province to grow
tropical fruit. So, when you look at increasing or doubling the production of
agricultural commodities currently produced in this province, you have to take
into consideration what effect that will have on the marketplace. To double
production of something such as carrots or cabbage or turnips, or whatever it
may be, even though we're still a long ways away from being self-sufficient,
even a temporary market flood of a certain product has big, big economic and
disastrous effect on existing farms.
So while
he may have taken my comments and concern over government's haphazard plan to –
well, plan to expand agriculture, it is not an anti-new-entrant sentiment.
My
children are new entrants. I really hope that the support system stands there
for them and others who would be so courageous to enter the agriculture industry
and respond to the need to increase our food supply. This is not something to be
politicized or put into a theatrical venue.
Farming
is very practical, food production is very essential and right now all our food
needs are being produced, are being supplied. Being supplied, albeit, by outside
province, but do you know what's going to happen when a local farmer here in
Newfoundland and Labrador starts producing that crop, starts producing that
product? That's going to put an increased pressure downward on the actual demand
for that product because those farmers elsewhere are still going to continue to
produce product. Albeit only temporary, it will create a glut of a certain
product and that will push the price down.
While
the minister continues to not be comprehensive of economics, that farming
actually has to be profitable in order to survey and thrive, and I understand
that because his experience outside the political theatre is very limited. To
the best of my knowledge, he has no experience of operating a farm or any type
of business, and I do not mean offence to that, but that is from the platform he
speaks about economics, economics of producing food. The economics of producing
food has to be there unless we're going to go back to some sort of collective
state farm in which the government pays for everything, which is not
sustainable.
Why is
it that these amendments are coming forward without the background put in place?
This pressure from the agriculture industry to make this amendment so farmers
are not persecuted in their development of agricultural land has been decade and
decade coming to the top and it was there the first day they took office. Now,
we are here in the weaning days of the administration and, yes, let's get that
in. Let's get that in, don't put a whole lot of thought into it but let's get it
in. We done it.
Well, do
you know what? That's a disservice to the agriculture industry. It's also a
disservice to the enforcement officers who are going to expect to digest and
interpret this vague amendment and apply it to farmers to the best of their
ability, and it's going to plug up our court system. It's going to end up in
more cases being thrown out of court. So, why is it that we have to go ahead
with this amendment without the details? The details should follow in behind
right away.
The
minister had the opportunity to stand up. Minister, how come you didn't stand up
and say that those details were on the way, that those details were being
considered? Why? Because there was no answer to that. It wasn't thought about.
Let's just make this fluffy little amendment, as I see most coming from his
department. The minister needs to look at who is actually going to clear the
land, who is going to put it in production, who is going to increase the food.
I can
quote him in Hansard as saying: Food
comes from – hold on one second. The minister, as per
Hansard, stated: People eat food but they do sometimes take farmers
and where the food comes from for granted. Now, that's one thing I do agree with
him on. But what I don't agree with is we're changing that. Why is it that we,
as a government, take credit for the hard work of the men and women of
Newfoundland and Labrador who put everything on the line everyday and work
themselves to the bone to increase our province's food security?
We
should be humbled by people's efforts, humbled by young people who decide to
leave, I guess, what is it you call, normal society, and jump into the field of
agriculture. That is something that we should champion, definitely not take
credit for.
Now, the
politicization of farmers and the success of the industry have no place within
this Chamber. We need to put things in place that are functional. We need to put
amendments in place within legislation that will allow farmers to harvest the
trees off the property and use the proceeds or resources from that property to
expand their agricultural operations.
Why is
it that we continue to not back up our plans with the finances? The minister
talked on Thursday of the increases in the academic field, the increases at
Grenfell, which are absolutely fantastic moves by the way, but do you know what
that's going to create? That's going to create increased competition for funds
that are destined for farmers.
We've
increased this whole level of academia, which is going to try to tap into
agricultural resources through the CAP program or the Provincial Agrifoods
Assistance Program – which, by the way, was decreased this past year in budget.
They're going to compete with farmers who should be using that money to expand
the agriculture industry and expand the sustainability of food in the province.
I'm not
saying that academia will not be able to assist in that. It's just going to be
increased competition. So while the minister stands up and says how great things
are going and how this is great that we're having an expanded industry, expanded
educational fields we need to put the dollars behind it.
If we're
looking at doubling the agricultural production in this province, if we're
looking at doubling the intellectual capacity, the education avenues available
for farmers or would-be farmers or people who would like to work and support the
industry, we're going to need, as administrators, as this government sits coming
into this coming budget – I ask them if they hope to double agriculture, why,
Minister, have you not committed to doubling the money available to farmers and
the industry.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there further Members who
wish to speak to the bill?
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill. I was interested in hearing
some of the things the Member opposite had to say and I disagree strongly with
some of the things he was saying, especially there at the end of his comments
about the funding for research into agriculture at academic institutions like
Grenfell campus is totally, I think, contrary to what is actually happening.
What is
happening is we have farmers partnering with researcher at Memorial University
to develop new crops and the way they can be grown in Newfoundland. I was at the
opening of the functional food lab at Grenfell Campus just a few months ago, and
I was amazed to see how they were working with farmers. There were several
farmers there in the room that they had been working with to develop the
marketing of their products, to look at the qualities of the products grown in
Newfoundland and how they can enter niche markets; for example, blueberries and
the quality and the taste and the way things look. Research and applying that
academic background to an agricultural industry, in partnership with farmers, is
an essential part of growing this industry and making things happen here in this
province.
So I
just wanted to make those comments on this piece of legislation. I would also
say that the Federation of Agriculture supports this, helped develop it. The
Forest Industry Association also supports it. So there was lots of consultation,
lots of talks with industry representatives when this was brought forward. It's
a very positive thing. It's a small change but many small changes make a big
impact. I think this is an important piece of legislation. It may not be earth
shattering, but it is certainly an important piece of legislation for farmers
clearing land, wanting to eliminate some of the red tape.
I would
encourage all Members to vote for this piece of legislation.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there further Members who
wish to speak to the bill in third reading, Bill 51?
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
Forestry Act. (Bill 51)
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
Forestry Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper. (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Order 6, second reading of Bill 56.
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 56, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 56 entitled, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The
Government Of The Province And Others, be now read a second time.
Motion
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The
Government Of The Province And Others.” (Bill 56)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today
we're introducing the Public Service
Pensions Act, 2019. In the last session, Mr. Speaker, we introduced the
Teachers' Pensions Act, 2018, which
represented the final steps in pension reform for the Teachers' Pension Plan. At
that time, we said that we would be bringing forward similar legislation for the
Public Service Pension Plan in this session of the House, and that's exactly
what we're doing during this debate today.
In 2014
the previous administration, Mr. Speaker, working with the five largest unions,
reached an agreement on pension reform. It's not often you'll hear me in this
House give credit to the opposite side, but where credit is due I will give
credit. So they negotiated pension reform with the five largest public sector
unions and, since that time, shortly after that, governments changed and we've
been working with these unions to put in place a system of governance that would
sustain the public sector pension plan.
This
system will ensure that once members of the public service retire, they will
have access to an adequate pension fund. As part of the Joint Sponsorship
Agreement and Pension Plan Reform Agreement with NAPE, CUPE, IBEW, the
Registered Nurses' Union and Association of Allied Health Professionals, it was
agreed that the plan would move from being a statutory plan, which is governed
by legislation, to a non-statutory plan, which is governed by contract.
The new
act will only retain those items and terms required to provide for the
continuation of certain things set out in the Joint Sponsorship Agreement. So
we're adding in references to the Public Service Pension Plan Corporation, which
delivers plan administration services, the Public Service Pension Plan and the
Plan Fund, to recognize the continuation of these parts of the sponsorship
agreement.
The act
will also contain reference to government's obligations to the supplementary
account and to the pension plan, including our obligation to a promissory note
that will ensure that the plan is fully funded.
Mr.
Speaker, what will no longer be in the act will be provisions relating to
benefits and general plan administration. The provisions will now be captured in
the non-statutory plan.
The
pension sustainability is important for everyone in the province, Mr. Speaker.
The unfunded liability, at present stage with the public service pension, is
very large so the sustainability of the plan is important to everybody in the
province. It's important for plan members to ensure that they have a reasonable
retirement income. It's important to the provincial government as it gets
pension liability under control. It's important to taxpayers as it reduces the
financial impact by putting the plan on track to be fully funded within 30
years.
Mr.
Speaker, we've worked hard with the public sector unions to get to this stage
today. Over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of work has been put
into ensuring that we protect the sustainability of these pensions, that we put
in place a plan to eliminate the liability. There's a plan that the plans will
be fully funded within 30 years, Mr. Speaker.
We've
worked very closely with the public sector unions in putting the plans in place
to ensure that we get the public service pensions back on track and reduce, and
eventually eliminate, the liability on the taxpayers of the province.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will welcome debate and comments from all sides of the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise to Bill 56, An Act Respecting the Pension Plan for Employees of the
Government of the Province and Others.
As the
minister indicated this is, I guess, one of the final steps in regard to pension
reforms that were started a couple of years ago. In June of 2015, our
administration, then with Premier Marshall and the Finance minister at the time,
along with NAPE, CUPE and other unions, announced that an agreement had been
reached on pension reform that had to do with ensuring the continuity and the
viability of the pension plan due to the unfunded nature of it and how,
collectively, together, a new entity would be created. How that would be managed
by, not only the government of the day, but certainly the unions and where there
would be joint management to make sure the fund, over a period of time, I think
it was about 30 years, would be fully funded through joint partnership.
There
was a promissory note required to be given to the Public Service Pension Plan by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that was about $2.685 billion
and these, as I said, would be paid over that 30 years to ensure the stability
of the Public Service Pension Plan.
Also, at
that time, and different from in the past, it was just managed by the government
of the day or Finance and Treasury Board, would manage the investments and would
look at returns. In years of low returns, would have to determine how that
shortfall would be made up – most cases it wasn't – and look at periods of
higher return, how that would be reinvested and used to bring stability to the
pension plan.
At that
time, when this was done in June of 2015, it was announced, at that time, a
commitment to joint trusteeship for the pension plan and that would be joint
management on a go-forward basis. Government and the unions, at that time, would
have joint and equal representation on a new pension board, which the government
and unions would be equally responsible for, as I said, the liabilities and the
surplus which occurred in the plan in any given year.
There
was an overall management of that which included joint partnership which makes a
lot of sense. These are the stakeholders that are involved, input from both
sides and it would be managed collectively.
Legislative changes were made to the Public Service Pensions Act, which
implemented these changes and the legislation was amended to reflect other
changes agreed to by the government of the day and the unions in question. Those
were for things, changes in the legislation as pension contribution rates, what
they would be, benefits and other post-employment benefits as would be reflected
on a go-forward basis in regard to the pension plan.
At that
time in 2014, the principles of the pension reform were to deal with the
instability of the plan, to make sure over a period of time, collectively, it
could be resolved and the benefits that's accrued to individuals that work with
the public service would be available to them and they'd have the security that
it would be available to them. All those benefits would be available to them and
their family at the point of retirement.
The
principles of the reform, at that time, were: a sustainable defined benefit
pension plan, a reasonable retirement income for public services employees and a
reduced financial impact on the taxpayers by putting the plan on track to be
fully funded by 30 years.
There's
a significant amount of investment that had to be made. I talked about the fact
that it was a little over $2.5 billion, so to put that amount in at any
particular time is quite significant. The agreement by all parties is it would
be done over a 30-year period with the direction and with the result of bringing
stability to the plan. And having a clear plan in place, too, from the
bond-rating agencies and the financial institutions that look at the operations
of the province, knowing that there's a shortfall there – at that particular
time, and as of today – in regard to meeting the obligations of the pension fund
that gives confidence to financial institutions, to the bond-rating agencies
that there is a plan in place. I guess, more importantly, too, that the
stakeholders involved, the joint partnership to manage it, the liabilities and
the surpluses over that period of time would be dealt with collectively and
there's quantified, in terms of financial investment, what's required and
there's a path forward for that.
So, that
gives, not only stability to the fund, it gives stability to the financial
markets in looking at our financial planning in regard to this particular issue
of how we're doing and there's a significant plan in place to see us through the
challenge that exists.
In the
past there were similar bills that were put forward and they would have been
debated and passed in the House. We did one in the fall of 2018, but this bill
here is also a result of pension reform. As I said when I started, it's the
final step into bringing unions together and those funds that exist that they
are a responsibility of government, that implementing a Joint Sponsorship
Agreement which takes care of that.
The
Public Service Pension Plan is now administered by what's called Provident10
It's a corporation that's jointly governed, as I mentioned, in terms of joint
partnership, joint management by the unions and the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador. The sponsorship agreement calls for the administrative provisions
of the plan to be moved out of the legislation and into the plan text. The plan
text is non-statutory pension plan, so it's moved out of the confines of the
legislation and into an entity that provides oversight with Provident10.
The
change to do that is in line with the joint nature of the pension reform. All of
those that were engaged in this, stakeholders and supporters, are involved in
the changes as we refer to is the plan text, but only the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador administers the legislation, thus it makes sense to
have the majority of the administrative provisions contained in the planned text
and not in the legislation, because that's where the joint management and
oversight comes into partnership to oversee the Joint Sponsorship Agreement.
Some
provisions, especially as it relates to legal issues, will continue to exist in
the legislation, as I referenced. These include the continuation of the fund,
the promissory note which is being invested, the supplementary account, commuted
value, locking in and other issues as well.
While
some of these will also be maintained and continued in the plan text, they're
also contained in the legislation. These are legal requirements and legal
ramifications in regard to the plan text – that's essentially a contract, and
these issues need to be recognized and established in the legislation and
maintained there.
The
officials, I certainly recognize them for the briefing they gave. They indicated
as well you cannot contract outside of the law, so keeping this legislation
provides certainty and as well enforceability in regard to those items that I
mentioned that are part and will stay in the legislation.
The bill
is intended to transition the Public Service Pension Plan from the statutory
plan to a non-statutory pension plan. The Joint Sponsorship Agreement requires
the plan to be exempt from the Pension Benefits Act, as it will no longer be a
regulated pension plan. The bill, as we have it here, Bill 56, will repeal the
current act and replace it with this bill.
As I
said, my understanding is this is the final step in implementing the Joint
Sponsorship Agreement, which our administration initiated in 2014 and we're
following through over the last number of years in regard to the various unions
to make sure we have a sustainable, clear and concise way forward to ensure the
stability of this fund for the security of families and those that are involved
in receiving benefits from this fund, that it's maintained and there's a clear
path forward in how this would be achieved. This bill today reflects that
process and brings to conclusion the overall process to get us to where we need
it to be.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll finish my comments in second reading, but certainly look
for some discussion and some questions as we get to Committee.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
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 speak to Bill 56, a bill that – as has been said by my colleague from
Ferryland – brings to an end a process that began probably going right back to
2014 with the Joint Sponsorship that he spoke about.
I'm not
going to go into all of the details. He did an excellent job in giving the whole
history of this. I thank the Minister of Finance for what he did as well. I
don't think I need to repeat everything that has been said, obviously we are
voting for this bill. I think we should be really proud of the fact that here in
this province we've taken this step with regard to the public service pensions
and, of course, the Teachers' Pensions Act as well.
I know
that some provinces have done similar things in the past; Ontario, for example,
has had separate bodies taking care of various pension plans like the secondary
school teachers pension fund, which is quite a well-known plan. I think we
should be proud of what we've done because we've given security to a plan that
was in bad shape, underfunded. Not because of the workers, mind you. The public
servants never shirked their responsibilities for their plan in the past, but
they had to bear for many years the worry and uncertainty of a plan that really
had been improperly managed by governments.
But this
is setting things straight. This is making sure that from here on in there is
security and there is stability. The one thing I would like to do – I know the
Member for Ferryland referred to their government. And I've done this; I did
this when we were approving the Teachers' Pension Plan. I want to mention Tom
Marshall by name; he was the premier at the time when his government started the
process in 2015. I think the workers of the province should be always be
grateful that Tom Marshall had vision and that he understood the need for a
defined benefit plan.
I will
always recognize him for that and certainly recognize him, too, for the way in
which he worked with the public service sector unions and with the teachers to
bring this into place. Now, with the Public Service Pensions Act finalized, we
have an end to the whole process. A process that brings stability, that makes
sure that there is reasonable retirement income for public service employees. I
think we have created a model here with the creation of Provident10
that all the unions took part in with government.
As I
said, I'm not going to take a long time because it's all been said, the details
of how we got to where we are. I'm very happy to support the bill. I'm glad to
see that finally now everything is in place for all of our workers.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long, just to say that obviously I support the bill. It was a
move that was made, as was referenced, by the former administration. I believe
Tom Marshall was the premier at the time, if I'm not mistaken, or at the very
least he was the Finance minister, and I think he might've been the interim
premier. He did negotiate an agreement on pension reform, so this is just really
bringing all groups in line with that.
It has
big implications but, I suppose, you could argue in one way it's kind of
housekeeping, but the implications certainly are large. Obviously, I think we
will all support it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
If the
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will
close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Members opposite for contributing to the dialogue and debate on this
particular piece of legislation. I believe it's a good piece of legislation. As
I said in my introductory remarks, it will help stabilize the pension funds and
reduce overtime, the liability, to eventually eliminating the unfunded liability
on the pensions. It secures pensions for our valued public service employees,
Mr. Speaker, so that they know that they can rely on their pensions into their
retirement years, and it will gradually reduce and eliminate the liability on
the taxpayers of the province.
So I
thank the Members for speaking to this particular piece of legislation. We look
forward to continued progress.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 56 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:
Those against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting A
Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others. (Bill
56)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill “An
Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province
And Others,”
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 56)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 56.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
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.'
Carried.
On
motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 56, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The
Government Of The Province And Others.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The
Province And Others.” (Bill 56)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There's
no mention of pension portability in the bill. Just wondering about pension
portability in and out of the public service plan, if it will continue, and will
that be in the plan text?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
That's a
good question. I don't have the answer at the moment, but I will alert staff and
I'll have an answer for you before the end of the day.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As well,
section 5 of the bill deals with the pension fund and states that – I think
subsection (4), I think it is, states that if an employer does not make a
contribution, a penalty may be levied.
I'm just
wondering, I think this is similar, I'm trying to remember, to previous
provisions of legislation that was amended related to pension. I'm just
wondering, can you outline what the penalty would be and who decides when and if
that penalty is implemented?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
There is, under Provident10
which is where these pensions would be administered, there's a joint sponsorship
body. So it's made up of an equal number of government employees, an equal
number of representation from unions and so on. There is general public
representation on the Provident10 board as well. So the joint
sponsorship board would make those decisions.
I'm not
sure if that adequately answers –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, thank you.
I thank
the minister for that.
Another
question I have in regard to section 5(6) notes that the assets of the fund can
be pooled in the assets of other pension for investment purposes.
The
question was: Section 5(6) talks about the assets of the fund and it can be
pooled with the assets of other pension plans for investment purposes, I'm just
curious is that currently occurring where it's being collectively pooled and
being invested or is it invested in a one-off particularly related to each plan?
Is there any joint, I guess, pool investment going on?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I will await direction from
the staff on that particular question, but I do have an answer on the
portability. It will be dealt with in the plan text.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you very much.
Okay, so
the portability issue will be outlined in the plan text, I guess it will be
similar to what other provisions had been. Okay, thank you for that.
I had a
question on – the bill indicates that the supplementary account is located in
the Consolidated Revenue Fund and that the minister is responsible for it.
Can the
minister give an overview of how this plan works and is it fully funded? I
guess, where are we today in that regard, overall?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
The pension funds have gone
to Provident10. There are promissory notes with the public sector
unions and ultimately Provident10 to provide funding year over year
to make up for the unfunded liability that's in the plan. So the unfunded
liability will eventually be eliminated.
The
promissory note is built into the fiscal forecasts of the province as an expense
and that funding will be transferred to the joint sponsorship body or Provident10
to eventually eliminate the unfunded liability currently held as a liability on
the province's books.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just if
I could, thank the minister for that, and as well just a point of clarity.
Section 25 deals with the Provincial Court judge's membership in the Public
Service Pension Plan. My understanding is judges have their own pension plan.
Can the
minister provide some details as to why the provision is contained in this act,
in this particular bill?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Answer to your previous
question: Provident10 will be fully responsible for investment
activities for the Public Service Pension Plan only. So I'm reading from that,
that they won't be looking at merging plans or consolidating plans. It's the
Public Service Pension Plan only.
In terms
of the judges, if the judges are included in this then they would've been –
because they're not a big enough body, is my guess, to be in and of themselves,
they would've been included in the Public Service Pension Plan.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so just to the
minister's prior comment in regard to Public Service Pension Plan standing
alone. I guess my question was in regard to pooling. I think your comment was
that there wouldn't be pooling, per se, as the requirement is, it would be
invested independently and in and of itself.
The
judge's piece, I think there was some reference to the fact that before creation
of the judge's pension plan, they paid into the Public Service Pension Plan, and
maybe some judges may still have a balance in the current plan. Therefore, I
suggest that may be why it's referenced.
The
final question I have, section 29 of the bill reads: “The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997 does not apply to this Act or the pension
plan.” I'm just wondering, can you provide some clarity as to why – explain why
this is the case?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Just for clarification on the
judges, any judges that were there prior to 2014 under the Public Service
Pension Plan are included through Provident10. Their funds would be
vested through Provident10.
On the –
can you repeat the –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, sure.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just section 29 of the bill
reads: “The Pension Benefits Act, 1997
does not apply to this Act or the pension plan.” I'm just wondering, for
clarity, why that is so, why it does not apply to the act or pension plan?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
That would be a legal
question, and I'm hoping somebody from the legal department would be able to
provide an answer. So I'll provide it as soon as I get it.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, 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 55
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 55
inclusive.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 55 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 Respecting A Pension
Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others.
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.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 56.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 56.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 56 carried without amendment,
the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Deputy Chair of the Committee of
the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 56 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole has reported that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 56 without
amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the report be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, Order 5, second reading of Bill 54.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Natural Resources, that Bill 54, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The
Statute Law, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act To
Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The
Statute Law.” (Bill 54)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I would say to not only the crowd out there watching, but to all those
assembled here in the House today, that everybody can finally relax that we've
finally gotten to the most scintillating piece of legislation that will be
debated in the House this session. Perhaps, at any point during this session,
there will not be a bill as substantive, important, frankly, earth-shattering as
this bill.
What I'm hoping is that when I'm speaking, I'm hoping that
what's coming through is the
sarcasm. The sarcasm font may be used by
Hansard to show what I'm talking about. In fact, it's interesting actually.
The
purpose of this bill, quite simply, is an act that amends errors and anomalies
in other pieces of legislation. I actually will go into it a bit, but it's funny
when you go through Hansard and read
previous debates on this bill.
In fact,
I read Mr. Ed Roberts, former Lieutenant-Governor, former Minister of Justice,
someone well known from sitting in this House, reading his commentary from one
time that when he was Attorney General, spoke to an amending act of this nature.
He used tones and terms that were very similar to the one I'm using here today,
which is meant to convey the fact that this is obviously a necessary bill. It's
a necessary piece of legislation, but it's not really the most interesting piece
of legislation we'll see in the House of Assembly. Basically, it's a bill that
changes some words, adds some commas. It changes a number of things.
So what
I am going to do, because I do find it interesting. The fact is we're amending a
number of pieces of legislation here. So what I will do very quickly is just go
through them and talk about the changes, just so that people can see that –
again, before I get into it, I will give special credit to Legislative Counsel.
It's
amazing, the commentary coming from the other side. I just heard a Member on the
other side: lay it on me, we can't wait to hear to this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I know they're interested,
but you got to hold off. Take your time. I got a full hour.
I will
take my time to debate this piece of legislation. No matter how interested you
are in having it put forward, I will take my time.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
I will
say in all seriousness, not just this piece of legislation but any piece of
legislation that comes into this House, we have Legislative Counsel working on
this. This is a division of the department that when you talk about punching
above their weight, they don't have a huge workforce but the amount of work they
get done in making sure that bills come into this House – again, when you look
at a bill, even a bill of this nature, which is – we're literally getting down
to the commas and changing simple words in huge, substantive pieces of
legislation. That takes a lot of dedication.
So I
want to thank those individuals. Again, Susan King is a person who sits in on
the meetings every single morning. When we get ready to go into the House and
what we're going to debate, she sits in on those.
In fact,
there's somebody who is sitting at our Table here that used to do a lot of that
work, sitting at the Table, Kim Hawley George. She knows exactly what we're
talking about. She's sitting there in rapt attention as I go through this bill,
because this is something she used to do. This is something she used to spend
her time doing. I want to thank her for what she has put into this.
Even if
I do say with a bit of jest – I talk about this bill. The serious part is this
does require dedication. Just the fact when you're going through and scanning
these bills and making the changes and working with the other departments. So I
want to thank them.
This is
the essence of the bill. When we talk about clause 2, we're amending the
Arts Council Act to correct an error
in the order of the definitions in that section.
We're
going to amend clause 3, section 30 of the
Auditor General Act to correct an incorrect reference to another act, which
basically used to be Public Tender Act,
we changed that to Public Procurement Act;
therefore, we have to make this change.
Clause 4
amends a subsection of the Child and Youth
Advocate Act to correct the name of a department. Again, it used to be CYFS,
now it is CSSD. These things have to be changed. They have to be amended to make
sure they stay current and up to date and reference the departments for which
they pertain to.
Clause
5, this is a piece of legislation – I'm responsible for a significant number.
This is one I wasn't familiar with, is the
Coast of Bays Regional Service Board Order. Section 2 of that bill has been
amended to add words that were inadvertently omitted. So our apologies to the
Coast of Bays Regional Service Board, but we've added those words back.
The
Condominium Act had a number of
subsections changed to correct incorrect references to another act. That came
out of the substantive change that was made when the
Registration of Deeds Act was replaced by the
Registration of Deeds Act, 2009. So a big change there; but, again,
we've covered it off.
The
Energy Corporation Act is being
amended, because what we've done is we've changed the word: entitites to
entities. Again, that's what we're talking about here. Legislative Counsel
really fell down on the job here and forgot that typographical error in the
millions of words they look at, but that's what we're here for. We get it right.
E-N-T-I-T-I-T-E-S was corrected to entities.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Riveting.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They say riveting, but the
fact is they're paying attention. They're listening, because they want to know
where I'm going to go next.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I know. It'll be a challenge,
but I think I can do it within the 53 minutes I have left.
Clause 8
of the Expropriation Act was also
changed referencing the fact that it went from
Registration of Deeds Act to
Registration of Deeds Act, 2009.
Clause 9
of the bill talks about the Family Law Act.
The same thing; there was a reference to
Registration of Deeds Act. We had to amend that. Clause 10 of the bill
references and amends subsection 4(4) of the
Fisheries Act to correct an error in
cross-referencing. The Forestry Act – this is a bill that's very important to the Minister
of FLR. The Forestry Act subsection
70(6), 70(7) and 70(8) will be changed to reference the previous noted change
for Registration of Deeds Act to
Registration of Deeds Act, 2009. As the old commercial goes, the more you
know.
The
Highway Traffic Act, we had a big
change in that one. Again, coming from a person who sat on the other side when I
was in Opposition and we spent literally 24 hours debating “may” versus “shall,”
the Highway Traffic Act had a
typographically error. The reference to “insure” was corrected to “ensure.” So
“insure” to “ensure,' that change had to be made. So I say to the Minister of
Service NL, you're welcome.
The
Highway Traffic Act also had to have
the Medical Act, 2005 changed to the
Medical Act, 2011. The
Highway Traffic Act also had the
reference to “Lieutenant-Governor” was corrected to “Lieutenant- Governor in
Council.” That's actually important, I think, because when we talk – that's two
different things all together, “Lieutenant-Governor” versus “Lieutenant-Governor
in Council.” So who knows the trouble we could have got in if that wasn't
changed?
Another
reference here to the Highway Traffic Act
– there are a lot of changes to the
Highway Traffic Act, which again,
itself as a bill, is amended very often in a number of sessions of the House
because we're constantly making changes, which is a good opportunity to throw a
shout-out to the Minister of Service NL and her department and her staff who've
been bringing forward pretty significant changes to that bill. Again, these are
the things that come with that.
The
Medical Act, 2005 to
Medical Act, 2011 had to be changed. Clause 13 is repealed.
Subsection 4(2) of the House of Assembly
Act where it talks about the quorum, that's actually handled through the
Standing Orders of the House, so that had to be taken out. The Standing Orders
is something that I've talked about a number of times in this House and I'll
actually be debating again on Thursday – looking forward to that.
Clause
14 of this bill amends the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act to correct
an incorrect reference. This is also another case of public tender changing to
public procurement.
Clause 15 talks about the
Interpretation Act to correct another incorrect reference. Again, we
brought in a bill last year where we enacted the new
Court of Appeal Act so we had to correct a change that sort of, I
guess, came out of that.
The Labour Standards
Act, we had to make a change there. The reference to section in section
43.13, “section” was corrected to “Part.”
Another change, the next one,
Labour Standards Act, the Summary Proceedings Act was replaced by the
Provincial Offences Act, necessitating
a change to the bill to ensure that that was covered off.
This
one's important to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mineral Regulations,
section 64 being amended, again coming from the Registration of Deeds Act.
Another change to the Mineral Holdings
Impost Act – not one that I deal with frequently – again, dealing with
Registration of Deeds Act.
The
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 2012 – so basically this is
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations were replaced by
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations, 2018. They added
the year there, a change there. There was another change that came out of that
in paragraph 443(3)(a).
This one
would be important you, Mr. Speaker. The
Office of Speaker Vacancy Act, clause 21 of this bill repeals that because
that's addressed in the House of Assembly
Act and the Standing Orders, so unnecessary.
The
Offshore Area Corporate Income Tax Act
had an incorrect reference that came about when the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic
Accord Implementation Act was amended – boom, to every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. The same thing applies to legislation when we talk about that
theory, Sir.
There's
another change there where the Income Tax
Act, 2000 was changed, necessitating a change in the
Offshore Area Corporate Income Tax Act. Clause 23 deals with the
Pension Benefits Act; same thing, LG
changed to LGIC. Clause 24, there were some changes in
Personal Health Information Act, some cross-referencing errors that
had to be fixed. The Personal Property
Security Act had subsections 37 and 38 amended to deal with the Registration
of Deeds Act; also the same in the Personal Property Security Regulations.
The
Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will be
changed by clause 27(1) of this bill to correct an incorrect reference to
another act – again, another reference to the infamous
Registration of Deeds Act, 2009. Clause 27(2) will amend the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Act – again,
dealing with the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act being
changed.
Moving
on to a different one: Pippy Park
Commission Act – again, subject to the Registration of Deeds Act being
changed to 2009. This is an interesting one. Clause 29 of the bill would repeal
section 6.1 of the Provincial Parks Regulations because it is spent. That's all
it says there: because it is spent.
Public Service Commission Act
was changed because Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 was replaced by the
Medical Care and Hospital Insurance Act.
We're
getting toward the end, Mr. Speaker. I've only got another 100 changes to go
through – I kid, I kid. The Status of the
Artist Act, that's one that, again, the credit goes to the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. The
Status of the Artist Act, a fairly new piece of legislation, got to
amend it.
The
Public Tender Act being replaced by the
Public Procurement Act. Works,
Services and Transportation Act, again, deals with a change coming from the
Public Tender Act and the Public
Procurement Act. And finally, clause 33 of bill would repeal a number of
obsolete or spent acts or regulations.
If we
want to get into that, we get to section 7(k) and we're getting down into “Meeting
of the Householders of the Local Service District of Burnt Point – Gull Island –
Northern Bay Order, Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 7/18.”
A bunch
of communities here. I feel like the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, when
he gets up and reads his petitions, it reads like NTV on New Year's where they
name all the communities. So, this is very similar to what we're dealing with
here now. We got Piccadilly, Lourdes, Dildo, Bauline South, Burnt Cove, Burin
Order, Northern Arm, Lance Cove, Wabush, Lab City, Goobies, Little Harbour, and
the list goes on.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate – and again, to those listening out there, it
only felt like a half hour. I was only debating for 15 minutes. The fact is that
I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill and any questions that may be
posed by my colleagues across the way. Unfortunately, these bills, while they're
not as interesting as some of the other pieces of legislation we've put in,
they're quite necessary. They may be deemed housekeeping but they are also
important.
So, on
that note, I thank my colleagues for their patience. I thank the staff of
Legislative Counsel and I look forward to the rest of this enthralling debate
that we are having on An Act to Remove
Anomalies and Errors in the Statute Law.
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 have
to compliment the minister on the details and exquisite lengths he went to to
highlight the elements here and the changes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, indeed.
As the
minister indicated in the Explanatory Notes this bill, Bill 54, is about
amending – before the House of Assembly here – matters in the statute law that
require really legislative correction as a result of amendments or enactments
made in previous sessions. And they are picked up by a staff, as the minister
had indicated, and these errors collectively are brought together and listed
here as changes and amendments to various statutes that would allow, I guess,
proper grammatical errors to be amended, and names or various other types of
errors to be corrected, and that's what this bill is about. List them out in
detail, list the act. I know from my own area, there's a reference here to Burnt
Cove, a community in my region, related to the local service district and
various parts of this.
So this
is a necessary function. I certainly recognize what it is in the bill. While
it's correcting errors, it is an important function. Those folks involved with
putting legislation together, certainly over a period of time through amendments
and various other pieces of legislation are brought to the House, do find these,
and I'm sure make a list of them, and eventually get to be presented – I think
on an annual basis like this – for the anomalies and errors in the statute law.
So
that's what we're performing today. I don't think on this side we'll have any
trouble supporting it. We'll move forward, and I'm sure we'll have lots of
questions in Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to speak briefly to Bill 54, errors and anomalies. I would like to thank
the staff throughout the department for catching these errors and anomalies and
simply catching up. It's very interesting, some people really have that skill
and that attention to detail, and their experience and their expertise really
hones in and shows us where there may be specific issues that might arise
because of a misplaced comma or an alternative word or misplaced full stop.
So what
this bill does it puts forward corrections in various statutes to errors and
anomalies in legislation, which have, from time to time, been discovered. These
corrections are technical in nature, but they still need to be passed by the
House. That really points to the issue of how important the legislative work of
government, of this House is, and how important it is to take the time to do the
work thoroughly to ensure there aren't errors or anomalies that really affect
the intent and the spirit of a bill or legislation.
What
we're seeing are very minor amendments. I have no quarrel with any of the
amendments that are proposed here today, but I do wish that government had had
more of an appetite for substantive amendments to some of these acts that they
require.
For
instance, the Arts Council Act has not
seen an overhaul since it was passed in 1980. That's almost 40 years. That's
almost 40 years, Mr. Speaker, that that act hasn't seen an overhaul. When we
look at our arts community which has grown in numbers, that has grown in
sophistication and in scope, but their budget has not. Also, the rapidly
changing area of arts. We see more and more people in film and television,
multimedia, digital art. The fact that there hasn't been an overhaul in 40 years
really begs the question, why not? Simply, what we're doing is we're just
looking at some very minor details, minor anomalies, minor omissions.
The
Public Procurement Act, which we
passed not so long ago, but really had a missed opportunity in terms of looking
at gender and also social benefit clauses, which is really best practices and
what we're seeing all over the world; yet, although we have only recently passed
and had an overhaul of our Public
Procurement Act, government decided not to look at those areas, not to
really update and make it a state-of-the-art type of procurement act. Missed
opportunities. So I would like to point out that I believe that's an omission.
The
Energy Corporation Act, with the
advent this session of the Oil and Gas
Corporation Act, we could have seen an opportunity to amend section 5.4 of
the Energy Corporation Act. This
section states that Nalcor may refuse to disclose virtually sensitive
information of a corporation or its subsidiary. This clause is now found
verbatim in the new oil and gas act. Again, we had an opportunity to do
something different with that rather than these very – certainly, not
substantive changes to any of the bills or acts that in fact might need to have
those substantive changes.
Also,
the government departments and public bodies which are covered by ATIPPA; if a
public request for information is denied, the public body must provide an
explanation as to why, and that decision can be appealed to the Privacy
Commissioner. However, in our Energy
Corporation Act, those who are seeking information have to go to court.
Clause
16 of this bill sees a minor amendment to the
Labour Standard Act. We could see a
more substantive amendment dealing with the long overdue move to raise minimum
wage. That's the kind of amendment we need to that particular act, Mr. Speaker,
rather than just the very, very minor one that we're seeing. We could have seen
an amendment that gradually raises minimum wage to $15 an hour over a few years.
Clause
30 of the bill sees a small amendment to the
Public Service Commission Act. We have
recommended on a number of occasions, and with the
Independent Appointments Commission Act,
to see a gender lens and hiring practice. We could have seen an amendment to
this act which would do a great deal to improve opportunities for
underrepresented members of our society. That could have been a productive
amendment as well; but, no, we see nothing substantive in that area.
So, Mr.
Speaker, again, we have no problem with the act as it stands in terms of what
it's proposing, but what I would like to say is what a missed opportunity. This
is for errors and anomalies, I would also say omissions. What a missed
opportunity to omit the opportunity to do substantive work on a number of these
acts that are calling out for it and whose time has come to do best practices in
a number of these different areas.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to the bill here today in response to the Member for St.
John's Centre, because she's particularly referencing a piece of legislation,
the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council
Act of 1980, and saying there isn't anything substantive that had changed.
We had
recently debated that particular piece of legislation in this House that would
allow for the entity to be in compliance as to how they operate in terms of
allowing multi-year granting to arts organizations for sustaining funding. This
is really important that this entity would be able to continue to operate in
that way; if not, they would not be able to offer multi-year funding to artists
and organizations within this province.
The Arts
Council of Newfoundland and Labrador does incredible work in supporting our
artists, and our government works very hard to continue to support them as well.
Artists in this province – 5,000 people in the cultural community contribute
$450 million to GDP. That's quite significant.
The
Member opposite did not mention once in her debate what is needed to be changed
in the Arts Council Act. What is
antiquated, or what is it in that particular act? Is she saying the entity and
the organization with the act and the set up? Because the arts council was set
up with a very specific purpose, to support the creation and dissemination of
art to allow for artists to thrive here in our province, to have that mandate to
create art for the sake of art creation and being able to support them in their
individual endeavours. That's a really important aspect of that entity, and it
continues to do so today.
They do
an incredible job in being able to support individual artists. That is
important. They also support and do sustaining funding and provide a number of
other grants that they do. We brought that piece of legislation to the House and
we debated it recently.
There
was no amendment brought forward by the Member for St. John's Centre, but she
gets up and talks about how there needs to be great change and great things
being done. When the Third Party put forward their platform to support the arts,
Mr. Speaker, the only thing they had in it for 2015 totalled $526,000. That was
their investment in supporting artists here in this province. Since we've been
in government, we put an additional $2 million just in the film corporation,
supporting arts here in this province.
We
support artists in our province to the tune of almost $20 million, specifically
in the Department of TCII. Then we look across departments, like the Department
of Education and other entities, as to how we support the arts. There are many
things that we do, Mr. Speaker.
I fully
support changing the matter here, and the errors and omissions and anomalies
that need to be into place, but I just want to correct the record and have the
same latitude as the Member opposite put forward as she brought up the
Arts Council Act. We brought it before
the House. We brought forward an amendment to that act just last fall. The
Member opposite, I believe, supported that amendment and did not offer to make
any additional changes. Maybe she didn't vote for it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
be brief. I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety on bringing this forward and going through the act, or the changes. This
takes me back to my university days in education and majoring in English. So
this is very important, where you put your punctuation and what changes are
made. It's a pretty tedious job that somebody has to do, siphon through all that
legislation and find out what's applicable now and what isn't applicable.
There
was a book that went out, and I'd recommend it to anyone in the House here when
you're dealing with punctuation. It was a book called
Eats, Shoots and Leaves, and it was a zero tolerance approach to
punctuation. It was written by Lynne Truss, and it bemoans what's happening with
punctuation in the UK and the United States.
It's a
fabulous book. Again, I say anyone should take a look at it and read. The title
itself tells you what the importance is in terms of punctuation, because the
title itself, it says Eats, Shoots and
Leaves. It's based on an old joke around a panda bear who walks into a café,
orders a sandwich, eats a sandwich, proceeds to shoot everyone in the restaurant
and starts to leave. And, of course, the one survivor asks the panda: why did
you do this? And he said, well, look at the wildlife manual. Of course, in the
wildlife manual there was a mistake. It was, rather than eats shoots and leaves,
it was eats, shoots and leaves. So it highlights the importance of good
punctuation.
So, I
applaud the public service workers who went through this. It's a tedious job.
Nobody wants to do it, I'm sure, but it's a very necessary piece of work that
has to be done. We certainly support that and future examination of our
legislation to this degree.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly glad to rise and speak to Bill 54. I thought for a moment, I had to
check – I thought it was a money bill when I was listening to the Minister of
TCII. Anyway, there are 33 clauses here and I only have comments on 32 of them.
So,
we'll start at number one. Actually, I'm only carrying on.
Mr.
Speaker, this is obviously a housekeeping thing. Although, as has been said,
there's no doubt a lot of work goes into it from the perspective of staff having
to comb through legislation and make sure that all the i's are dotted and the
t's are crossed and the punctuation is where it should be, and that if there are
any references to other pieces of legislation, that that is correct and so on.
I know
if I was a person who was actually doing this work, I probably wouldn't be too
pleased to hear Members stand up and say: oh, there's nothing to this, it's only
housekeeping. They could say, yeah, you try doing it. The fact of the matter is,
it is necessary and we do appreciate the work they've done to do this. As has
been said, a comma in the wrong place can make a big difference to the meaning.
Also, when you see things, even in legislation when you say something like shall
or may, for example, it could totally change the meaning of a piece of
legislation or a clause within a piece of legislation.
So all
this stuff has to be done. It is important. As I said, we're glad we have some
good, competent people within the public service to do it. Obviously, we'll all
be supporting this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
I had my opportunity during my first comments to perhaps add some levity to this
otherwise, what can be a dry debate.
I do
want to thank my colleagues from across the way for their participation in this
debate. What I will say is that, again, there were some good points that were
raised by all Members, and I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill.
So, on
that note, I will sit. I will take my seat and look forward to moving this into
Committee and moving this important bill along.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 54 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.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Remove
Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 54)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has been now 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 To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,” read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 54)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 54.
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.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 54, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute
Law.
A bill,
“An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.” (Bill 54)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 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 33
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 33
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 33 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 Remove Anomalies
And Errors In The Statute Law.
CLERK:
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.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 54.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 54 without amendment.
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 (Warr):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Chair of the Committee of the
Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 54 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 her to report Bill 54 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.
On
motion, report 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.
Given
the hour of the day and the amount of time we've spent sitting here, I move,
seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, 10 o'clock, being Private Members' Day.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 10 a.m.