November 3, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 32
The
House met at 10 a.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.
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.
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 (Trimper):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
With the
consent of the House, I would ask that we pause Committee on Bill 26 and move to
Bill 27.
CHAIR:
Does the hon. Government
House Leader have leave to proceed with Bill 27.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
CHAIR:
Leave is granted.
Order,
please!
We will
now proceed with the consideration of Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act,
2012.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012.” (Bill 27)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Chair, the act talks about
extending the dispensing of drugs or medicines by registered nurses or,
actually, it includes the licensed practical nurses now, under the supervision
of a regional health authority.
Are
there any plans to move that outside of the health authorities?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
No.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Good answer.
Chair,
as we move into the new model of the Health Accord, when we talk about community
health centres, I'm just wondering about where those maybe have practices – we
talk about the full scope and range of practices with physicians, nurses, LPNs
and others, they may or may not, necessarily, be under the jurisdiction of a
regional health authority.
My
question is related to that new model as it comes in place. This legislation
won't allow, for example, a LNP, in that circumstance, to do this, right?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Yes. It won't. I'm not trying to be unnecessarily cryptic.
This is
a start. The RHAs have existing protocols in place for dispensing for RNs. These
would simply be altered, if the House approves this, to allow LPNs to follow
those very same protocols; it's within their scope of practice. Once the bugs
from that have been worked out, then it would be possible later to change the
scope, should there be an operational need to do that, for community care teams.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Chair, again, it's a good piece of legislation.
I ask
the minister: Again, on the issue with the long-term care facilities or personal
care homes, does this apply in personal care homes? I guess the answer is no.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
You are correct, Sir. No, it
doesn't.
Again,
this is a start. We have robust protocols that we know and understand through
the Department of Health and the regional health authorities, as you would
remember from your time there, to deal with dispensing. It is really aimed at
those clinics where the licensed practical nurse might actually be the only
practitioner available on site and the dispensing will be a short-term,
temporizing measure to get them to fill a prescription or seek advice from
further care providers.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So, as you suggested, every
type of facility that a regional health authority has responsibility for,
whether it be a small clinic or anything or a long-term care facility operated
by a regional health authority, this legislation would apply, correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Yes, that is correct.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
In consultations for changing
this bill, did the pharmacists have any concerns with the broadening of the
scope for the LPNs?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
None at all. The pharmacists have read this, they're happy with it and they
support it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
There was some comment that this would greatly help rural situations. Can you
elaborate on how it helps the rural situations?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Certainly.
With the
use of, for example, virtual consults and a diagnosis made by a practitioner off
site in a small clinic, an LPN might be the only skilled health care
practitioner on the premises. This will make their workload simpler. Otherwise,
in my day, for example, up in Labrador-Grenfell, I would have had to seek a
phone authorization and then they'd actually have to call somebody in to
physically give them the pills to allow the patient to take them out of the
building.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
The Health Accord talks about teams and, obviously, LPNs are a part of it. So,
in the dispensing of drugs, is there going to be some kind of a pecking order or
is it basically on a needs basis, I guess?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Again, within the constraints of RHA-run facilities, it would be done on a needs
basis. If there were a multitude of providers who have this in their skill set,
then whoever was dealing with the client or patient at the time could simply do
this as part of their visit, their consult. If that happens to be an LPN, that's
extended the number of providers who can provide this service with regards to
dispensing of medications.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Question: What groups have been consulted on this change?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
This is particularly a matter
for the Pharmacy Board which are the regulators of the practice of pharmacy and
the College of Licensed Practical Nurses. They were the folk who were involved
in this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
So I
take that as the department did no consultation with any groups, for example,
like the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Medical Association and/or the
Nurses' Union?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Chair.
It is
normally the case that scopes of practice for self-regulating profession are a
matter for internal discussion and, in this case, because it was effected by the
Pharmacy Act, obviously we spoke to the Pharmacy Board. We don't usually ask
their permission or involve other disciplines unless there is a clear regulatory
or legal requirement to do so.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Are
there any limits to the types or amounts of medications that can be dispensed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
It will effectively be the
same range of medications as those that would be dispensed by an RN. The
quantities will be – these are temporizing measures. These are to buy time. It's
not anticipated that there would be large quantities of medication. Most RHA
protocols provide for prepackaged with one or two doses in them. This would be
to tide them over until they could get a regular prescription filled or have
further treatment by another care provider somewhere else.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Education on this has been mandatory since 2012. Are there any refresher courses
or ongoing education that is required? What about LPNs that have been in the
system prior to 2012?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Chair.
When the
scopes of practice for LPNs were changed, there was an upskilling process that
went on to include what was colloquially referred to as the medication module.
All LPNs currently practising in this province as LPNs are required to have that
or have had that as part of their training if they graduated since that time.
The
issue of ongoing professional development is partly addressed in here by the
ability of the college to set a quality assurance program and maintain
educational standards. But there's no formal mechanism about refreshers for any
element of their practice. This is a matter for a self-regulating profession to
set for itself.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair and thank
you, Minister.
It says:
“… when practising with the approval and under the general supervision of the
regional health authority.”
So can
they dispense in private community physicians' offices?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
No.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers in this Committee?
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
One
quick commentary or question and maybe it goes without saying. My colleague for
Stephenville - Port au Port said it was a good piece of legislation. Indeed, it
is a good piece of legislation. I can envision the Bonavista hospital, which
serves over 8,000 people, and you have people that may be travelling upwards of
45 minutes. The dispensing of drugs to these people who will not able to access
a pharmacy is a great thing.
It is a
good thing in that part of the district, but I often think that the consultation
with the patient sometimes – and it might seem like an obvious ask in the
regulation, but I know that sometimes we have appointments where, in Bonavista,
they have a specialist appointment arranged for 9 o'clock in St. John's and I
know that they're pulling out of Bonavista area at 4:40 or 5 in the morning –
not often, but on occasion.
So the
only thing I would ask there, even though as blatantly obvious as it may seem,
will it be in the regulations that they will consult with the physician that if
somebody is 30-40 minutes away from where drugs are dispensed by a pharmacy that
they will consult with them to find out how much medication they would need,
that they can comfortably make sure that they can get to the pharmacy? They may
be rare exceptions, but at least a consultation would be important in those
cases.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you.
That's a
good point. To explain the process, that consultation would be required in
actual fact before the dispensing took place because the LPN is not prescribing,
they are dispensing on the authority of a prescribing-able professional. So that
discussion would be part of the dispensing process so that they would know how
much to give and so on.
The LPNs
are not prescribing; they are administering. They can do that already. What
we're adding with this amendment is the ability to dispense an amount that has
been discussed with a prescriber in advance.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, just wondering – you've said in commentary to the Member for Topsail -
Paradise that this is like a short-term measure to get you through in the pinch,
so to speak. The amounts would probably be like a little blister pack with a
couple of pills in it or whatever, as opposed to a full prescription and so on.
But if
this is passed, what would prevent the regional health authorities and so on
from sort of expanding upon this and having this go on in perpetuity, if you
will? That now, all of a sudden, you have an LPN in an area and that's all you
have and they're just going to do it all because they can.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Chair.
This
isn't addressed directly in the act. The intent, however, between the College of
Licensed Practical Nurses and the Pharmacy Board was that this would be a
short-term measure, episodic one-off. The continuity of care in a particular
area is of concern to us and is being addressed by other mechanisms. It's not
specifically addressed in this act.
It may
be addressed in the protocols and policies that exist at the regional health
authority level because, by and large, it is their policies that limit the
amount of medication to be dispensed. But, as in my comments to the previous
question, the amounts to be dispensed would be directed by a prescribing
practitioner.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
I thank
you for your participation.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is 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.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Pharmacy
Act, 2012.
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 Bill 27
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed Bill 27 without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
With
consent of the House, I would request that we stay in Committee and move to Bill
26.
CHAIR:
Does the hon. the Government
House Leader have consent?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
We can proceed.
Thank
you.
We are
now discussing Bill 26.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.” (Bill 26)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
It's
been a wild morning.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Already.
P. DINN:
Already, yes.
A couple
of questions here: What was the extent of consultations with the College of
Licensed Practical Nurses?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
This was significant. This
paper has its roots prior to COVID and the delays have been partly due to
difficulties with scheduling meetings, given conflicting commitments from the
staff also involved in this. So it's been lengthy and it's been detailed and it
has been also, as I say, involved in connection with the previous bill, the
pharmacists.
But
we've had a lengthy discussion with the College of Licensed Practical Nurses and
they're certainly very keen to see this move.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Did you
consult with any other health care groups outside of the College of Licensed
Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Again, I would reference an answer I gave earlier. This is a self-regulating
profession by and large. We do not consult with regulators outside of that
unless there is a direct impact such as there were with the previous bill we
considered. So this has been principally a discussion between the department and
the College of Licensed Practical Nurses.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Are all
of the changes proposed reflective of the wishes of the College of Licensed
Practical Nurses?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
Did they
request any changes that were not included in this bill?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
None that I'm aware of at this time, Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Clause 3
adds a new function to the college to administer a quality assurance program to
enhance public protection and accountability.
Do the
LPNs currently have a quality assurance program and, if not, do the College of
Licensed Practical Nurses require any additional resources to administer a
quality assurance program?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
They do not have one established in regulation. They may have had informal
counselling processes, but this is kind of a development we've seen in other
self-regulating professions where, rather than going from nothing to a full
disciplinary panel to deal with an issue, a quality assurance program can be
used to educate and inform and perhaps ultimately avoid a full disciplinary
panel.
We have
not been advised by the college of any external resources that they would
require from us and they've given us to understand that they can do this from
within.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
What is
the process to deal with a complaint relating to LPN conduct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Chair.
Quality
assurance is kind of like a proactive approach. The complaints procedure for the
College of Licensed Practical Nurses is a more formal approach and is already
laid down in their current policies and regulation. That is not affected
necessarily by this, except to say that a quality assurance process within that
would be able to perhaps avoid such a more obvious issue process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
What is
the process to report to the registrar conduct deserving of sanction?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I don't have that detail in
front of me. My understanding is the information required by the public is
available on their website.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Another question here: In
terms of the licensed practical nurses, how does this affect or is this a
positive or a pro when it comes to labour mobility to other jurisdiction?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I have not been advised of
any changes that people in the college have predicted one way or another based
on the introduction of these amendments.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to Bill
26, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act?
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 to 13.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 13 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
I have a couple of questions.
The
minister had referred to the duty to report. I know that within the education
profession if we were looking at an assessment or we had seen something untoward
that we would report, we would have an obligation to report to the person who
may have committed the infraction, whether it be a courtesy or ethics.
You may
not be able to speak to that at this legislative level, but I just wanted to
make sure that I spoke to that. One would think that the most appropriate would
be to inform the person who may have been seen or considered to be in the
untoward act.
Would
that be something that would be considered in this situation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I think the exact mechanisms
around a duty to report would be a part of an education process and, in that,
done by the college; those kind of details would be formally address. I wouldn't
be able to speak to that in any detail at the moment because, should this go
ahead, the college would then be in a position to make recommendations about how
to do that and in what order.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Quality assurance is always a
good thing in every organization and institution.
It had
mentioned that you may be utilizing the RNs in this quality assurance program
with the LNPs. We know the load that the current RNs carry.
Would
there be any remuneration considered in this for RNs and other officials that
would be a part of this quality assurance team?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
That's a good question.
I think,
to be honest, it would be one that the college would determine as to whether or
not it was able, prepared to compensate folk who participated in that. I
wouldn't like to speak on their behalf; it's a decision they would make.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Understandable.
It also
mentions that all records are confidential. I would assume that if you were in
an organization and someone perceives something untoward, those records would be
accessible by the person who is considered to have done something that was
misaligned with the system or untoward, that they would have access to every
document that would be – or the alleged act would be associated with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I think that refers to confidentiality outside of the process, Chair. There is
an obligation to report results of disciplinary tribunals, particularly in the
situation where a significant penalty has been imposed by the college. The
confidentiality piece there would be around what was released publicly.
Certainly, internally, with a complaints process, that is a quasi-judicial one,
or can be, and is laid down in their regulations. Who shares what with whom is a
matter for the college and natural justice, as well as the legal profession to
opine on. We wouldn't stipulate that in here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Minister.
I
noticed that the quality assurance committee would have immunity. I'm trying to
envision is when you have a group – of which this LPN, I'm assuming their
employment would be at risk, that would be there, that they would have immunity
against, I guess, any persecution or rebuttal of which the LPN would have. What
recourse would the LPN have in this particular situation, if something untoward
or their employment was being terminated?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
That really speaks more to
the disciplinary piece than the quality assurance.
The idea
of quality assurance is to educate, inform and correct. In the situation where
disciplinary action was taken, there is always an appeal mechanism. What that
is, through the College of Licensed Practical Nurses, I wouldn't be able to
stipulate; but every self-regulating profession has an appeal mechanism about
decisions of a disciplinary tribunal.
CHAIR:
Further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I would
like to propose several amendments – oh, no, we're not gone to the next clause,
are we?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Good, thank you.
CHAIR:
No, you may proceed and I
understand there's leave for the Member to proceed with several amendments at
the same time.
Thank
you, proceed.
P. DINN:
Yes, they're all very
similarly related. So I'll read them to the record. There are six.
Speaker,
I move that clause 6 of the bill be amended in the proposed subsection 12(2) as
follows: (1) by deleting the words “he or she has” and substituting instead the
words “they have”; (2) by deleting the words “he or she is not” and substituting
instead the words “they are not.”
Also,
Speaker, I move that clause 8 of the bill be amended in the proposed subsection
14.1(3) by deleting the words “he or she” and substituting instead the word
“they.”
Speaker,
I move that clause 10 of the bill be amended in the proposed section 29.2 by
deleting the words “his or her” and substituting instead the word “their.”
Speaker,
I move that clause 10 of the bill be amended in proposed section 29.3 as
follows: In subsection 29.3(1), by deleting the words “his or her” and
substituting the word “their”; in paragraph 29.3(3)(b), by deleting the words
“his or her” and by substituting the word “their”; in subparagraph
29.3(3)(d)(iv), by deleting the words “his or her” and by substituting the word
“their”; in subparagraph 29.3(3)(d)(vi), by deleting the words “his or her” and
by substituting the word “their”; in subparagraph 29.3(3)(d)(vii), by deleting
the words “his or her” and by substituting the word “their” and by deleting the
words “he or she is” and by substituting the words “they are”; and in subsection
29.3(6), by deleting the words “he or she provides” and by substituting the
words “they provide” and by deleting the words “him or her” and by substituting
the word “them.”
Speaker,
I move that clause 13 of the bill be amended in proposed paragraph 33(a) by
deleting the words “himself or herself” and by substituting instead the word
“themselves.”
Finally,
I move that clause 6 of the bill be amended in proposed subsection 12(1) as
follows: (1) by deleting the words “he or she” and substituting instead the word
“they”; (2) by deleting the word “has” and substituting instead the word “have”;
and (3) by deleting the word “meets” and substituting instead the word “meet.”
Those
are the six amendments proposed all together, all dealing with very similar
issues in terms of gender neutrality within the act, as we well know there are
individuals out there who identify as non-binary so I think these amendments
would help in (inaudible ) – and that would be seconded by the Member for Terra
Nova.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Committee will now recess to consider the proposed amendments to Bill 26, An Act
To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Committee have reviewed the proposed amendments to Bill 26, An Act to Amend the
Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, and find that all the amendments are in
order.
Debate
will now proceed on the amendments.
I
recognize the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I'm
pleased that they're in order. Hopefully, it will all be voted as approved as
well.
I think
it's a reflection of our times forward. In this House, as we know, we have
disposed of the salutation of Mister or Madam Chair; something I find hard to do
because it's a sign of respect. We grew up saying Sir or Madam; however, in our
society there are people that certainly do identify as non-binary. I think our
legislation going forward – all legislation I'm sure – would have to be looked
at in terms of going forward to ensure that the legislation reflects society.
I'm glad to see that.
This
piece of legislation, I think we're already well aware that it's a good piece of
legislation for our licensed practical nurses. I look forward to it all being
approved and moving forward.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the amendments?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
I thank
the Member opposite for the amendments. I think this is the second time now
we've done this in Committee. We know this is a change that's going to have to
happen in all acts going forward. I can assure you that going forward this will
be a lens that will be put on all acts. I know there's a whole lot of stuff that
needs to be changed, previously, but at least going forward we'll make sure that
this lens is applied.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
No
further speakers to the amendments?
Is this
House in support of the amendments as tabled?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
amendments are carried.
On
motion, amendments carried.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to the bill?
Seeing
no further speakers, shall clauses 2 through 13, as amended, carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
clauses as amended are carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 13, as amended, 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.'
The
enacting clause carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Licensed
Practical Nurses Act, 2005.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
title is carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried with amendments?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bills 26 as amended and 27.
CHAIR:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair and report on Bill 26 with amendments and Bill 27
without amendments.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have been very busy. They have considered the matters to
them referred and have directed me to report, first of all, Bill 26 with
amendments and also I would like to report that Bill 27 has been carried without
amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole have reported that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed that Bill 26 be carried with
amendments and Bill 27 without amendment.
When
shall the reports be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bills be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move
seconded, by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendments to Bill 26
be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
First reading of the
amendments to Bill 26.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendments to Bill 26
be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of the
amendments to Bill 26.
On
motion, amendments read a first and second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, third reading of Bill 36, An Act Respecting The
Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 36, An Act Respecting
The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of the
Province be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province. (Bill 36)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The
Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act, Bill 24.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 24, An
Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.” (Bill 24)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak in this House to Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Corporations
Act. The Corporations Act prescribes
the requirements for incorporation, governance and operation of corporations in
this province; management of corporations is a shared responsibility between the
provincial government and the federal government, Speaker.
These
amendments would result in enhancing law enforcement efforts to counter the
misuse of corporations and removing the residency requirements for corporation
directors.
In
December 2017, Finance ministers from throughout Canada agreed to pursue
legislative amendments requiring all corporations to hold accurate, beneficial
ownership information which would be available to law enforcement, tax and other
authorities upon request. A joint federal-provincial-territorial commitment in
June 2019 reaffirmed these intentions to work together on cross-government,
anti-money laundering best practices.
The
first phase is to amend legislation to require corporations to maintain a
register of individuals with significant control, i.e. beneficial owners. To
date, six jurisdictions including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI,
Nova Scotia, along with the Government of Canada have already implemented this.
All other jurisdictions have committed to doing so.
Information pertaining to beneficial ownership or individuals with significant
influence or control is difficult to collect or obtain. Yet, the availability of
such information is crucial for law enforcement, tax and other authorities to
identify persons who may be implicated in suspicious or illegal activities. This
amendment to the Corporations Act will
strengthen law enforcement's access to such information, Speaker.
The
second amendment will remove current residency requirements for incorporation.
Section 174 of the Corporations Act
restricts a temporary resident from incorporating a business on their own or
with other temporary residents. Digital Government and Service NL has heard from
temporary residents, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and Memorial
University that this restriction is an obstacle to entrepreneurial pursuits by
residents in this province who do not yet have permanent residency status.
Nine
Canadian jurisdictions including BC, PEI, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have previously
removed residency requirements for incorporation. Neither have identified any
negative impacts from the removal of these residency requirements. The removal
of these requirements, Speaker, reduce barriers for newcomers to start
businesses here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to addressing questions from Members in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
First of
all, I'd like to thank the minister and her department for the briefing that we
received, I'm going to say, probably a couple of weeks ago now on this. They did
a great job on it and glad to see it come. Hopefully, we'll get through all the
legislation that we have proposed here.
Again,
great to represent the District of Ferryland here. I thank the residents and the
constituents for voting me in, I certainly appreciate that. Every chance I get,
I'm going to remind them and thank them.
Starting
with the bill, this bill makes two changes to the
Corporations Act. It removes the residency requirements for
directors and increases the transparency of beneficial ownership of
corporations.
Currently, at least 25 per cent of directors of a corporation registered in this
province must be resident Canadians,
where a resident Canadian is defined as: “(i) a Canadian citizen ordinarily
resident in Canada, (ii) a Canadian citizen not ordinarily resident in Canada
who is a member of a prescribed class of persons, or (iii) a permanent resident
within the meaning of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act … and ordinarily resident in Canada, except a
permanent resident who has been ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one
year after the time at which he or she first became eligible to apply for
Canadian citizenship, (iv) an international entrepreneur, or (v) an
international graduate entrepreneur.”
This
provision means that a temporary resident who wishes to start a business must
find a Canadian to sit on their board. This can be a significant obstacle for
newcomers to our communities, international students or other temporary
residents who want to start a business, especially when a group of temporary
residents who want to work together to start a business, like the case of
international workers who are here studying at businesses.
This
bill will improve this requirement from the legislation and, thus, make it
easier for persons who wish to start a business to do so. In making this
legislative change, we'll be following the eight other Canadian provinces who
have already done so. I heard the minister say six, but we're saying eight. It's
important that, as a province, we're open to business growth and we are
encouraging of newcomers who wish to start a new business. If we do not make
this change we will be at a competitive disadvantage and temporary residents may
choose other Canadian provinces to live and work in.
The
second change of this bill is to increase the transparency of beneficial
ownership of corporations. These changes are being implemented along with the
federal government and all provincial governments. All governments in this
country are implementing these changes in an effort to strengthen the
investigations as it relates to money laundering and financing of terrorist
activity.
So what
is this beneficial ownership all about? It is defined in section 45.1 in the
bill before us and it closely follows the definition provided by the Department
of Finance Canada, which is: “Beneficial owners are the individuals who directly
or indirectly own or control 25% or more of a corporation or an entity other
than a corporation. In the case of a trust, they are the trustees, the known
beneficiaries and the settlors of the trust. If the trust is a widely held trust
or a publicly traded trust, they are the trustees and all persons who own or
control, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of the units of the trust.
“Beneficial owners cannot be other corporations, trusts or other entities. They
must be the individuals who are the owners or controllers of the entity. It is
important to consider and review the names found on official documentation in
order to confirm the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information. It may be
necessary to search through many layers of information in order to confirm who
are the beneficial owners, as the names found on official documentation may not
always reflect the actual beneficial owners.”
The
federal government, with the support of all Canadian provinces, is making
changes so that the law enforcement can investigate and see who is behind the
ownership of corporations if needed. According to the federal Department of
Finance, “The concealment of beneficial ownership information is a technique
used in money laundering and terrorist activity financing schemes. Identifying
beneficial ownership removes the anonymity of the individuals behind the
transactions and account activities, which is a key component of Canada's
anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime.”
By
collecting financial information and confirming its accuracy, reporting entities
“are performing an important step to mitigate the risk of money laundering and
terrorist activity financing, and ultimately, to protect the integrity of
Canada's financial system.”
British
Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia and the federal government
have already implemented this legislation. What does this legislation do? This
legislation requires a corporation to maintain a list referred to as a register
of people who are considered to be beneficial owners or have significant control
over the corporation. If this information is requested by an investigative body,
police agency or regulatory, it must then be turned over. The legislation we are
debating today also contains within it provisions for the protection of privacy
and fines for enforcement.
I do
have some questions when we do get into Committee and certainly look forward to
asking those questions.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
examining this legislation, Speaker, I think my colleague, the Member for
Ferryland, has quite aptly described the two changes that are being proposed by
government with respect to the residency and the beneficial ownership. Those two
changes, there are certain things that we need to look at.
First of
all, with respect to the residency requirement, I think that is a good thing.
Now, we are going to see any temporary residents who wish to start a business
here in our country – and in our province in particular – will not face the
obstacles that previously, with the previous legislation, they did. As the
Member for Ferryland had indicated, currently at least 25 per cent of directors
of a corporation must be resident Canadians.
So what
we're seeing now is that there is more encouragement of students, for example,
perhaps international students, who may be studying here from abroad; they may
be studying business. I think that's a good thing. They may want to start their
own business together and now they will not face that obstacle.
This is
good because it encourages business development and it encourages growth. I
guess when we look at the Corporations Act
perhaps it might be beneficial just to look at the corporation in general. The
corporation is the most important form of a business organization. It is the
predominant business vehicle in our modern commerce. We know that it is a
separate legal entity. We also know that the cornerstone of corporation law
focuses on limited liability. I think that is important to recognize the
importance of corporation in our commerce today.
We know
that corporations consist of shareholders and directors. When we're looking at,
first, removing the residency requirement of directors, I think it is important
to know that directors are really charged with the management functions, for
example, in a corporation, like policy development. We also know that directors
are elected by shareholders. We know that directors have important duties,
fiduciary duty for example. We also know that they have very wide and expansive
liabilities and they're exposed to a broad range of liabilities regarding the
business corporation.
Just
putting it in that context I think is important to understand why this residency
requirement is a very welcome – removal is very welcome because we are going to
now be supporting the development of business growth. It puts us, as well, at a
competitive disadvantage if we don't make the change. Temporary residents may
opt to go to other provinces because we know, as has been pointed out, that
there are at least six or more Canadian provinces that have already implemented
this legislative change.
I think
that with respect to the residency requirement, that's a good thing. I think it
is a progressive change and it's certainly necessary to remove obstacles like
that when we see legislation having those obstacles.
The
second legislative change that is being proposed is with respect to beneficial
ownership and that this legislative change will increase transparency. As we've
stated, and even yesterday in debate I was discussing another piece of
legislation which was looking at increasing transparency. Transparency is always
very important. I think we see, perhaps, the lack of it at times in our policies
and in our legislation. When we don't have that, we have less accountability.
That's not a good thing.
So
beneficial ownership really goes to the issue of money laundering and perhaps
any kind of financing of terrorist activity. We know when we look at money
laundering – for example, I looked at some of the information that the United
Nations had back in 2011 with respect to money laundering in Canada. We are
estimated to be between $5 billion and $15 billion money laundering in Canada,
according to the UN. Estimated to be between that number – $5 billion and $15
billion.
We know
what money laundering is. It's the false reporting of income from criminal
activity as income from legitimate business. So when we see that amount of money
that goes into money laundering, and whether it's funnelled through terrorist
activity, any kind of legislation like this which addresses enforcement, which
hopefully will increase and enhance law enforcement efforts and measures, is a
good thing.
So we
see that with respect to the beneficial ownership piece, this bill will increase
the transparency of this kind of ownership. We know that the federal government
and all of the provincial governments are looking to doing this. All governments
in this country are implementing these changes so as to strengthen
investigation.
My
colleague, the Member for Ferryland, had indicated what exactly beneficial
ownership is. We know what it is and we know that we have to look at the
concealment of beneficial ownership information. It's a technique used in money
laundering and terrorist activity. This will remove that anonymity. It will take
away the anonymity of individuals who have as their intent to engage in money
laundering or any kind of financing of terrorist activity.
It would
be my argument this is a good thing. What will happen now with this legislation
is we will see the ability to collect information about ownership and to confirm
its accuracy and to also report entities who are involved in performing an
important step to mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist activity
financing.
We know
that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia and the federal
government have already implemented this legislation. I think it's a good thing
that this legislation will now require corporations to have a registry list. I
think that's a good thing. Again, it's going to enhance the measures to try to
target and combat money laundering. I think that's really important.
These
beneficial owners, from what we understand they can have significant control
over a corporation. So now we're going to see investigative bodies, whether it's
police agencies or any kind of other regulatory body, if they want this
information, they want to know the ownership, have the ownership information
divulged or turned over to them, now they will have that power to do it. If it's
requested it will have to be turned over to those authorities. Again, I think
that's an important enhanced measure to combat this serious problem. We know
corporate crime is a very serious matter in our country; it's very, very tough
to combat and to investigate. So if any kind of legislation like this supports
us in those efforts to limit and mitigate these problems, I think it's a good
thing.
Now one
thing I think is important, I note that the legislation does mention that there
are provisions for the protection of privacy and there are fines for
enforcement. I don't know what they are. I'm looking forward to finding out what
that is, what kind of protections will be in place to protect people's privacy.
We have to be very, very mindful of that when we're giving expansive powers to
different agencies, whether they're investigative bodies.
There
has to be with that power also safeguards with respect to privacy. They have to
be limited, there's no question about that. I look forward to finding out what
those limits will be. As well as enforcement. What are the fines and how are
those fines going to be enforced? We've seen it time and time again, without
proper enforcement of laws, then they're really toothless, they don't have any
effect. It's very important to see what kinds of enforcement measures are going
to be in place to actually give this legislation some of its power.
With
that, Speaker, I think those are some of the concerns and some of the issues
that I wanted to address. I think that in substance it's a very good piece of
legislation and I'm very supportive of it. But, again, I would like to have
those issues with respect to privacy and enforcement – and we can certainly get
at that at in Committee.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
general, I do support the legislation. I'll be voting for it. I do have a couple
of points or questions or issues, whatever you want to call it, one from each of
the changes, because there are two significant changes here in this piece of
legislation.
The
first one I just want to speak to is the issue around significant ownership, or
whatever the term is here, of the directors and ownership in these corporations,
that there has to be a list provided of who these people are. That's a good
thing. As my colleague for Harbour Main talked about the whole issues around
money laundering, organized crime, terrorism and all that stuff, obviously,
that's important. Anything we can do to enhance law enforcement efforts to
combat those things, I think it would be prudent for us to do so. Obviously, as
the minister has indicated, our federal government has endorsed this and a
number of provinces have. Those who haven't are going to, from what I
understand. I support that aspect of it.
My
understanding of it is that the information on these directors or substantial
owners is something that law enforcement can request – or I should say demand
really, I suppose, not request – if there was an investigation and so on. What I
don't see here, and I know it's not necessarily really that issue, but more
public disclosure of these people.
The
reason why I say that, I look back at, as an example – I'll just use this as an
example; I'm not using it to beat anybody up but it is what it is. I look at the
example of the Canopy Growth deal and that numbered corporation that allegedly
resided on Plank Road – according to CBC or whoever investigated it in the media
– that allegedly benefited from the Canopy Growth deal which involves public
money, a deal with the provincial government and impacting public money.
Whether
it's a direct grant or any dealings with the government on any kind of a deal,
you had a numbered corporation and there's no transparency. The people had no
idea who was involved. There was lots of speculation out there at the time, but
the people had no idea who was being dealt with, who was potentially benefiting
from this.
So when
we talk about openness and transparency, which are great buzzwords, and while
this is a good piece of legislation from the perspective of organized crime and
allowing law enforcement to do their job, I'm disappointed to see that we have
not addressed the issue of public disclosure of who these people are.
Not
necessarily in general. If you own a corporation and you're doing business
privately, arguably, it's none of my business who the substantial owners are.
But if those businesses, those corporations, are benefiting from my taxpayers'
dollars and yours, Speaker, then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have
the right to know who these individuals are who are receiving money from the
public till, who are benefiting from government contracts and so on, benefiting
from the province, from the taxpayer.
That is
not addressed. What is being addressed here is law enforcement in some sort of a
sting or investigation or whatever the case might be, being able to obtain those
records if they required it. But the general public are left in the dark as to
who these people are.
If we
want to be truly open and transparent, like we say all the time, when it comes
to the public interest, public taxpayers' dollars and so on, then I think we
need to go a little further in our amendments. We need to have something in here
that says that should a corporation be benefiting from any government funding,
grants or programs, or should they be engaged in any business dealings with the
provincial government that's going to have any kind of an impact on the
taxpayer, then the names of the persons involved in those corporation, a lot of
them numbered corporations, those names should be public information so that we
know who's wheeling and dealing in this province and who's benefiting from the
public purse.
That's
not there and that's very disappointing. So I do support that section of the
bill from the perspective of your organized crime – support it 100 per cent. But
it didn't go far enough in public disclosure in cases where that corporation is
benefiting from the public purse. So that's my first point.
The
other point I just want to make – the other side of this bill, the other
significant piece of this bill: the residency rule. I understand why it's being
done. I understand that we don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage with
other provinces. We're really ramping up, the government has, its efforts in
terms of immigration, trying to grow our population, for obvious reasons why we
need to do that. I'm very supportive of that.
I
understand that if we have newcomers to our province who we want to welcome and
we want them to stay here, we want them to raise families – and, ultimately, we
want them to do it because we want them to pay taxes. I mean, that's the cold,
hard reality of it. We need more people paying taxes in order to support those
who are not paying taxes and support the services that we require as a province.
That's the reality of that.
We
should be encouraging people to stay here when they come, obviously. I can
absolutely understand why this could be a barrier, particularly, if we had
students coming to Memorial University, perhaps studying business and so on.
They want to be entrepreneurs; they want to contribute to our economy. That's a
good thing. I think we all support that; that's what we want. We want to try to
remove barriers, so I'm not against it from that point of view – I'm really not.
The only
thing I just question to some degree is – we actually had a bill come before the
House maybe a year or two ago that was similar to this one. It had the same
thing and it was to do with allowing, I think, landed immigrants, or whatever
the case might be, to actually operate businesses. There were some changes that
were made but it didn't go this far. We've just gone a little further.
Again,
I'm not against it in principle but I just wonder – and I'm just asking out loud
– are we opening ourselves up for anything in terms of, I don't know, those who
might come in, start a business, incorporate and are not from here. I'm not
talking about immigrants or MUN students. I'm not talking about that, but
somebody just to come in from Nova Scotia, whatever and open up a business, not
necessarily operate in the greatest way, leave a bunch of people hanging high
and dry and then just leave the province because there's nobody attached to that
corporation. They have no ties to Newfoundland, they're not living here so they
come on, they do what they do and just take off so to speak, without necessarily
that accountability or that want and that need to succeed and do right by their
neighbours and people here.
Obviously if you are living here, then you're invested in this community. If you
start a business you're planning on staying here. You want to be successful; you
want to grow your business. You contribute to the community overall because you
have those ties; this is where you are, this is where your family is and so on.
Whereas you could have people now, especially – you can run a business from
anywhere on earth now with IT and everything else, a lot of stuff can be done.
That's
the only thing – I'm just asking. I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom or that
it's going to be opening ourselves up for major problems. I'm not saying that. I
honestly don't know. That's not what I'm suggesting; I'm just asking out loud
the concern around people from outside the province with no ties to the
province. They don't have to be an immigrant. It could someone who is living in
Halifax and they just open up shop, they operate out of Halifax and they benefit
from our province. All the money that's being derived is not going back into our
economy; it's all going electronically transferred to their bank accounts, so
they're spending all their money in Halifax somewhere, not in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
That's
just sort of the counterpoints to this initiative that, again, if we're simply
trying to target MUN students, international students and people who come here
that want to open a business while they're getting their citizenship, I'm all
for it. I wish there was a way to do that and accomplish that while at the same
time preventing, necessarily someone who doesn't live here, has no intentions of
living here, starting up a business, benefiting from our province and taking all
the money and all the benefits out of Newfoundland and we don't gain anything.
All they're going to do is compete with locals and water down their business so
they can take the benefits and off to some other province somewhere to the
detriment of our own citizens that are living and paying taxes here.
That's
my only concern. Maybe it's unfounded; maybe it won't be a big deal. I'm sure
this has all – maybe the pros outweigh the cons; I'm not saying they don't, but
I am just putting it out there as a question and a concern as opposed to an
outright criticism.
With
that said, I still will support the bill.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a couple of minutes. Again, I think we support the change.
Anything we can do to help businesses start up is always a good thing.
But I
would like to point out that right now, unfortunately, some of the regulations
we have in place as a government are prohibiting small businesses and new
businesses from actually being able to bid on government contracts. Many
tenders, proposals or RFPs issued by government require a business to have
experience and sometimes a points system is used. If you have no prior
experience on a project you will fail to receive the points necessary or less
points because you did not have any experience on comparable projects.
I would
suggest that the experience of the company employees actually performing the
task should be the key and not the actual company. A new company could start
with employees of a dissolved company. The evaluation criteria is outlined in
the Newfoundland and Labrador regulations. I mean, I think it should be
re-evaluated to determine if changes are necessary.
I just
want to make that point because I believe, as a result of these, government
sometimes and taxpayers sometimes pay more for a project than they necessarily
should. It's not because the people that are bidding on the contract don't have
the experienced employees to do the work, it's just simply because they are a
new company.
If we
want to promote new companies, I think we need to take a look at those
regulations and see what we can do to bring that down.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
want to speak briefly to this. I do applaud the idea of coming in line with the
rest of the country now on curbing and its plans to help eliminate money
laundering. That's been a serious issue for many. It's not just here, it's a
global issue that we all have to do our small part to fight and to mitigate.
I do
applaud the government on speeding along through that and to make sure that we
do implement those things, but, at the same time, trying to make it's easier for
non-residents here in the province to start small businesses. We see a lot of
entrepreneurial spirit here from people who do immigrate into Newfoundland and
Labrador. I can attest, there are a couple of small businesses that started in
my region by people who moved here from the Philippines. It does help contribute
greatly to the region. I do applaud that we are helping this.
I do
have some questions I'll bring to Committee on this as well, but I do think that
we are going in the right direction with that, but, at the same time, we do have
to make sure that we are not opening ourselves or any doors to anyone who has
nefarious motives in that way. We have to make sure that we have every aspect to
mitigate, monitor and to make sure that we're not putting ourselves or our
residents at harm when it comes to some of these things as well.
We have
some concerns about some companies, especially numbered companies and stuff like
that on some of the things in the past that has happened. We need to make sure
that we don't go down those roads again, but also that we're open and
transparent about how some of these companies operate, who's on their board of
directors and some of the things that go on there. We do need to make sure that
we are aware, an ability to have resources and the proper monitoring to keep an
eye on these kind of things. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands did make
good points there about some of the things we do have to do and we have to be
aware of.
With
that, I do support this. I hope that we see further stuff when it comes to the
Corporations Act to protect ourselves,
protect residents, protect consumers and to make sure that we are going in the
right track to be competitive, but, at the same time, we're not opening any
doors to any other things that would probably bring harm to us.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
Seeing
none, if the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, the
debate will be closed.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I really
appreciate the feedback and comments from everyone in this House.
I'll
just address the questions now and then we can obviously answer a lot more
questions in Committee.
To the
Member for Ferryland, I just want to make sure I was clear in my opening
remarks. In terms of the beneficial owner provisions, there are six other
provinces and then in terms of the no residency requirements, there are eight
other provinces.
I also
want to clarify that a physical address is still required for all companies to
register a company in Newfoundland and Labrador as per the articles of
incorporation documents. The company does still have to have a registered office
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess we are talking about the Canadian
immigration status of the directors is the core of what we're getting at with
the proposed changes, Speaker.
In terms
of the protections for privacy that was raised by the Member for Harbour Main:
the information would not be public; it would be collected and used by law
enforcement as they look into different crimes or potential crimes and do those
investigations. They would have information from many sources that would help
them in their investigations. There is no element of – none of this information
would be released to the public.
The
fines are unchanged from the existing
Corporations Act and they range from $500 to $5,000.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raised many good points and I'll address
those now. In terms of disclosing the beneficial owners publicly: there are two
phases to what the federal government has been driving. This is the first phase
in terms of the company creating a register and keeping a register of the
individuals with significant control.
The
second phase, Speaker: the federal government is looking at creating a
pan-Canadian beneficial owner registry. This is something we've seen globally.
In February 2020, the federal government undertook public consultations on doing
exactly that. That is still in progress and that would be a second phase
Canada-wide. It is where other countries are going honestly, Speaker. The UK
have that now. There is a registry publicly available of all of the beneficial
owners of companies. I think that is an excellent point.
This is
the first phase. I can't speak to whether or not phase two will be something
that we'll bring to this House, but the federal government is thinking about
that. I know the federal Finance ministers are talking about that and there is a
What We Heard document on the federal government website about that at the
moment that is called Strengthening Corporate Beneficial Ownership Transparency
in Canada. There was a White Paper done by the federal government as well.
The
Member also talked about the Procurement Act in terms of requirements for
companies bidding on government work. That would not be covered in the
Corporations Act; that would be in the
Procurement Act, which I believe I'm pretty sure falls in another department.
Then, I guess, we also did consultations with the Privacy Commissioner as well
from a privacy perspective.
In terms
of the residency provisions that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raised,
I think those are excellent questions. In 2018, there were changes to the
Corporations Act; that was before my
time. But in that the department was trying to do that same thing. We put in
interim measures, we left the 25 per cent in and essentially we're taking it a
step further because the measures that were taken in 2018 didn't go far enough
in helping these individuals start businesses.
In terms
of are we opening ourselves up. The Member for Harbour Main talked about this.
Directors of companies have limited liability, they're protected by the
corporate veil and there are limited situations whereby they would be liable.
So, like I said, companies still have to have a physical address in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I also
want to clarify, they were talking about Canadian residency, not Newfoundland
and Labrador residency.
Also, in
terms of keeping track of the beneficial owners, as the Member for Mount Pearl
referenced, the CRA also keeps a list of legal owners who own 10 or more of the
shares, so now we're kind of getting at a different angle, the beneficial
owners. I also think it's worth pointing out that sole proprietors do not have
to be a resident in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're kind of following in the
path of other provinces as well with that change.
The
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, I think, referenced the Procurement Act
as well. My understanding is the Procurement Act does not have points and that
might be a condition of a specific tender or an RFP.
I also
want to thank the Member for Labrador West for his feedback and the Member for
Ferryland. I'm happy to answer any more questions in Committee.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is Bill 24 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act. (Bill 24)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
24)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that this House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.
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 the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
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 (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.” (Bill 24)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
Has the
department consulted with groups such as the St. John's Board of Trade and the
Atlantic Chamber of Commerce on these two changes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
federal government did extensive consultations on this. We didn't do specific
consultations outside, I guess, speaking with impacted parties. We talked a lot
to Memorial University, for example, about the proposed change to residency. But
primarily, the consultations were done by the federal government. All that is
available on their website.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Has the Association for New
Canadians been consulted on this legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have
not consulted the Association for New Canadians, although we did speak with some
– sorry, there is an organization. Not the Association for New Canadians, but we
did consult with an organization that works with newcomers in Newfoundland and
Labrador about this change.
I also
want to clarify and add we did consult with the CPA and the Law Society, and the
federal government consulted with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about these
changes.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
In addition to this
legislative change, what is government doing to make it easier for immigrants,
newcomers and temporary residents to create businesses in this province?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
I thank the Member for the
question. I would defer to the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and
Skills to talk about what our government is doing to help newcomers.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
I feel like I might be like
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands at this point in time, wondering what I
should say next.
Thank
you very much. I would like to say a thank you to the minister for acting on the
direct representation of newcomers to Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the
things that we found in our consultations, in terms of barriers to newcomers to
Newfoundland and Labrador, is that they felt that the incorporation system for
entrepreneurs is not as welcome as it needs to be.
This
will correct – this was a direct measure which was introduced to the government,
to our thought process, by newcomers. With that said, Mr. Chair, it does provide
a more welcoming environment.
Now,
with that said, I'll take that. Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
G. BYRNE:
The minister points out
something which is very important: What are you doing to help newcomers,
including starting businesses? Well, Mr. Chair, the incorporation process was
daunting for newcomers because, of course, it required a director being a
resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, many newcomers did not have
these associations, these relationships that were forged.
There
was some question as to whether or not there could be questions about money
laundering, questions about the incorporation process, why it would be necessary
for those who would incorporate a business to have a director from the province
outside of the newcomer themselves. Through the jurisdictional scan, what we
found was that other provinces, in consultation with the federal government,
felt no risk to public security or safety, or to law enforcement. The risk was
minimal and, in fact, could be easily controlled and enforced. So when it comes
to helping newcomers, what we have to do is listen to newcomers. When the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL sat with several newcomers who
were entrepreneurs, this was a very specific piece of advice that they were
giving to us.
In
addition to that, Mr. Chair, when we look at job matching, we've introduced not
only new portals, new pathways for newcomers, priority skills – for example,
where we are now, including those who are graduates of Memorial University and
the College of the North Atlantic, those who bring advanced skills and
experience to our province, we've opened up new pathways for newcomers – but
we've gone even further. With our job matching, our Priority Skills matching
program, we're also matching not only those who are here with open work permits,
those who graduated from Memorial or graduated from CNA who have open work
permits, but we've asked employers from the province to register under this
pathway so that we can help match them and their businesses, their human
resources efforts, with existing people in our province with skills.
Mr.
Chair, we spend a significant amount of money educating people not only from
Newfoundland and Labrador – we spend $150 million annually on skills training –
but we also spend significant money on educating foreign international students.
It does not seem very practical for us as a province in a demographic challenge
to educate those international students, but then upon graduation for them not
to have a position.
I hope,
Chair, that answers the question that the minister has posed to me.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, I note that you stated with respect to some of the concerns I raised
about protection of privacy that it's not public information; therefore, that
seems to address that issue of privacy. But, no, I don't think it does. I think
that we need to know has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the
provision with respect to beneficial ownership, first of all.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL \
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much.
The
Privacy Commissioner has been consulted.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
With
respect to this, though, this legislation with respect to beneficial ownership
is not – you say it's not public information so it really doesn't have to be
concerned about protection of privacy. But we note that the legislation will be
examining, for example, individuals who are – like I say, the owners or
controllers of the corporation. It's going to be looking at the names found on
official documentation to look at accuracy of the information. It's going to
search through many layers of information to see who the beneficial owners are.
So,
again, what assurances are there that individual's rights with respect to their
information is going to be protected? I mean, what's in place to address that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess
I'll just clarify that the corporations don't have to give us the data. The
corporation just has to keep it themselves. A company would have to keep a list
on hand and, you know, their own information and privacy policies or whatever
would manage that. They have to keep a list of the beneficial owners of that
company so that they can produce it to law enforcement, if and when needed.
So in
terms of, I guess, how law enforcement protects data of the investigations that
they do, that would fall under their normal kind of information management
practices from the RNC and the RCMP.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So just on that point,
though, with respect to the privacy. You indicated that the Privacy Commissioner
has been consulted. Did the Privacy Commissioner report back or is that in
progress? Is there any direction from the Privacy Commissioner on this
legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Privacy Commissioner was consulted. That has concluded. My understanding is any
feedback would have already been incorporated and there are no outstanding
concerns.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Also, the issue with respect to fines. Now, you indicated that there are fines
in the range of $500 to $5,000.
Can you
just explain and expand on how that's going to play out, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
fines in the bill are $5,000, consistent with existing fines in the act;
503.1(5) does have a fine of up to $200,000. I guess, how that would play out is
if someone commits an offence related to beneficial ownership, they could get a
fine of up to $200,000 or six months in jail, or both.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So with respect to committing an offence with respect to beneficial ownership,
what exactly do you mean by that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
To me that would say that
they committed an offence against – they did not meet the requirements in the
act for beneficial ownership.
I can
read that section of the bill, clause 8. It's clause 8, 503.1 “Every director or
officer of a corporation who knowingly authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the
contravention of subsection 45.2(1) or 45.5(2) by that corporation commits an
offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted. (2)
Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly records or knowingly
authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the recording of false or misleading
information in the register of the corporation referred to in subsection 45.2(1)
commits an offence. (3) Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly
provides or knowingly authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the provision to any
person or entity of false or misleading information in relation to the register
of the corporation referred to in subsection 45.2(1) commits an offence. (4)
Every shareholder who knowingly contravenes subsection 45.2(4) commits an
offence. (5) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (1) to (4)
is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.”
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
Those
were all my questions.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
I do
appreciate the minister's commentary when she closed debate in second reading
and she talked about the fact that there is a second phase that the federal
government is considering, by the sounds of it, as it relates to publicly
disclosing the names of all beneficial owners. That is great, I'm glad they're
considering it; when I hear someone is considering it, it means it may or may
not happen.
I'm just
wondering, Minister, from the perspective of substantial owners in corporations
here in Newfoundland and Labrador that are benefiting from the public purse,
whether that be grants, loans or other dealings, what is to stop us here in
Newfoundland and Labrador – forget about what the feds are doing on a national
level to disclose everybody because I am not talking about disclosing for every
corporation. I'm only talking about the ones that are benefiting from the
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of monetary favour or business
dealings with the province.
What is
to stop us from bringing in or amending this piece of legislation to make it
mandatory that anybody who is involved in that regard, that corporation, a
numbered company or whatever the case might be, that that would be public
information in the name of openness and transparency?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you to the Member for
the question.
The
federal government is consulting on that. There is a document,
What We Heard, in terms of – sorry, I'm just distracted, sorry. To
the Member's question, the US government have gone in this direction, 87 per
cent of companies have to disclose, I guess, information to a central database
that's not publicly available. But in terms of the European Union, as of 2018
there's a European Union directive that all members have to implement a central
registry of beneficial owners.
I guess
in terms of companies that get money from the provincial government, the
Procurement Act would deal with that
in terms of requirements of a company when they get a contract from the
provincial government and the Auditor
General Act that we talked about earlier this week would also be relevant as
we talked about the authorities of the Auditor General as they pursue and – we
gave the Auditor General the power to look at how public money is spent.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Follow the money.
S. STOODLEY:
Follow the money my colleague
says.
That is
something, I guess, in spirit that we are working towards. This is the first
phase, but, obviously, I can't comment on whether or not that will be a
direction but that is certainly the direction of the federal government and
other countries. I have no reason to believe, at this moment, that that will not
be the direction we'll be going in.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
I thank the minister for
that.
Again, I
appreciate what the minister is saying that that's something that the federal
government is looking at and the European Union and so on in terms of a registry
and so on. I also understand the Auditor General, if there was some concern that
money was misspent, so to speak, or not utilized for what it was supposed to be
utilized for, then the AG, under what we passed yesterday, could look into that.
That's all good stuff. I'm not knocking any of that. I think that's a good
thing.
But the
point I'm trying to get at here is that as things stand currently, to the best
of my knowledge at least and maybe I can be corrected, is that you could have
corporation 1234, a numbered company and they could, in theory, get loans,
government loans, non-repayable government loans. They could get grants. They
could be involved in business dealings, as we've seen happen with the Canopy
Growth situation with that numbered company on Plank Road. They may not have
been spending the money wrong. Maybe they applied for it; they may have applied
for the money and met the criteria to get the money. They may be spending the
money the way it was intended, but the bottom line is the public doesn't know
who the individuals are involved in that deal.
So when
it comes to this concept of openness and transparency, when it comes to this
concept of people with connections inside government who are hiding behind a
numbered company and benefiting from their friends, that's the public
perception. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying the public
perception, which is everything, if you want to instill confidence. You could
have friends of government, connections to government, whatever stripe that
government is, who are benefiting from the public purse in dealings with
government, and then those individuals can hide behind a numbered company.
I guess
what I'm saying is regardless of what the federal government is doing and
regardless of what the European Union is doing and so on, I can't see why we
can't address it in our legislation to say that if any corporation is benefiting
from taxpayer funds in Newfoundland and Labrador, they must disclose the names
publicly of those involved. That's my point, Minister.
I'm
wondering is that something that you would be open to looking at bringing
forward. Whether the federal government decides to do a registry or not, whether
the European Union decides to do one or not, is that something you would
entertain in Newfoundland and Labrador in the interest of openness and
transparency with public dollars? That's my question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Chair.
I can't
speak to all the nuances raised by the Member. I mean, what I will say is that
the details for phase two are still in progress. We have to work out who's going
to pay for such a registry. How are the provinces going to contribute to it? Is
it all provinces? Is it mandatory? There are a lot of federal, provincial,
interprovincial discussions that need to happen on a federal public registry.
That depends on the outcome of phase two, the consultation documents, which I
recommend the Member read. It's on the federal government's website. I'll
certainly send to the Member.
In terms
of directors of a corporation, in terms of the
Corporations Act, we do not
differentiate whether a company has a name, rabbit company, or whether it has a
number, the 123 company. In terms of the
Corporations Act there's no difference. The disclosure requirements are
exactly the same.
When
someone registers a company they have to list the directors. Now, with the
beneficial owners' clause that we're proposing, that company also has to keep a
list of the beneficial owners as defined in the proposed legislation for law
enforcement. In terms of a company name versus the number of a company in terms
of the Corporations Act, that has no
relevance.
I thank
you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I can add anything further.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not
going to belabour this, so this will be my last point on it. Again, I'm not
suggesting that Newfoundland and Labrador is going to go ahead of the curb now
and that we're going to create a business registry, at any significant cost or
otherwise, for every corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be
great if it happens. I hope the feds do it, and if they do, I hope we get on
board. That is a good thing.
I'm not
talking about a registry. All I'm simply asking about or suggesting is that if
company 123 applies for a non-repayable government loan or a grant, or they
benefit in some other way through some dealing with the government and the
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I, as a citizen, should be able to
– whether there's a website with it all listed, that's one thing. I should be
able to call up some department in government and say, listen, I've just seen
that company 123 just got money from the government. I want to know who is
company 123. I want to know the names of the people involved in this deal, which
didn't happen under the Canopy Growth situation – it didn't happen. CBC had to
investigate and find out that there was some company on Plank Road and nobody
could tell us who the person was.
My
question and my point is – and if you can clarify it, that'd be great. I really
hope –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Stop talking.
P. LANE:
Who said stop – Chair, I'm
not going to stop talking.
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs might think this is a big joke, but I don't. I'm
sure the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador don't either.
Anyway,
my point is that if there's a corporation benefiting, then we should have the
right to know who those individuals are so dots can be connected, if necessary.
It's not about this government; it's about any government. That's all I'm
asking.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
happy to contribute to the debate.
The
Member asks an important question, which is when it comes to taxpayers' dollars
where is the accountability? So a couple of things I'll just point out here.
Number one – and our department does deal a lot with providing funding through
various means to various enterprises, corporations, companies and entrepreneurs
in our province.
I can
tell you that there is not one dollar that goes out to somebody that is not
publicly known or accounted for, and the Auditor General has the ability to do
so. I would put a challenge out that if anybody can find me a dollar that was
put out to a company, in taxpayers' dollars, where that accountability was not
there, I would be interested in seeing where that was and where it is because I
do not think that is the case.
I can
tell you from having been in this department now since August of 2020,
everything is extremely scrutinized, to the point where in many cases we're
criticized because we don't get it out fast enough because we do the due
diligence behind it. Because nobody wants to see a situation where money is
expended without the ability to know where it went or how it is recovered, but
it is a good point.
The
second part, I will say just for the record, there was never a taxpayer dollar
that went into Canopy. What happened there is there was remittances to the
Newfoundland liquor corporation when it came to taxation. In fact, last year,
when everything went sideways there, I actually tweeted a picture of the
remittance cheque that was sent back from Canopy to the NLC with every dollar.
There was no actual money from our department put into that corporation,
everything there was through a taxation and remittance format. I do think that's
an important distinction that needs to be put out there.
Again,
coming back, it is a good point and, hopefully, I have answered it
satisfactorily.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 10
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 10
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Corporations 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 hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 24.
CHAIR:
The motion is the Committee
rise and report Bill 24.
Is it
the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?
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.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 24 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that Committee have considered the matters referred to them
and have reported Bill 24 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a
third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that we do
now recess.
SPEAKER:
This House do stand recessed
until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
Good
afternoon, everyone.
Joining
us today in the Speaker's gallery, I would like to welcome Toby Obed. Mr. Obed
will be recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon.
Welcome,
Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Cape St. Francis,
Baie Verte - Green Bay, Placentia West - Bellevue, Torngat Mountains and Harbour
Grace - Port de Grave, with leave.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's my
honour to stand in this House of Assembly today and recognize the volunteer
efforts of the BGC in Norris Arm. The BGC are enormous to youth programs in the
town of Norris Arm.
I had
the honour to join them on many occasions in supporting them with seniors'
activities sponsored by the BGC. During the pandemic they provided meals to
seniors of the community and provided help with seniors' activities.
The BGC
have been a valuable contribution to the youth of the community and to the
province to enhance their skills and productivity.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members in this House of Assembly to join with me in
recognizing the BGC of Norris Arm.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
recognize Rose Nichols of Pouch Cove. Rose has been a community volunteer for
many years, but it was 11 years ago that she began knitting Hats for Newborns.
Following the birth of her eldest granddaughter, she saw that all newborns were
wearing knitted hats. She thought that the hats were purchased by the hospital,
but a nurse explained to her that volunteers supplied them, and that's all that
Rose needed to hear.
Purchasing the materials that she needed, she began the process of knitting hats
for newborns in her spare time. Over the past 11 years, it's estimated that Rose
has donated over 2,000 baby hats to the Labour and Delivery unit at the Janeway
Children's Health and Rehabilitation Centre. What a fantastic way to volunteer
your time and your talent, all the while supporting those young lives in their
first days. Such a level of volunteerism has to be applauded.
Speaker,
I ask all hon. Members in joining me in thanking Rose Nichols of Pouch Cove for
being a kind-hearted volunteer. We can all learn from her example.
Thank
You.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Speaker, today, I'd like to
highlight an amazing young athlete from my district; an up-and-coming star. At
just 15, Logan Colbourne from Coffee Cove, a community of 13, is minding the net
for the provincial AAA hockey team.
Logan
was a late starter compared to his teammates when he joined the Springdale Minor
Hockey Association in Grade 6 as an atom, on to peewee and now a bantam. Logan
played with the provincial AA hockey team before being chosen for the provincial
AAA team.
Logan's
desire was to be a goalie and seized every opportunity to excel in the net,
including summer hockey camps with Impact Hockey training. Logan Colbourne is
attracting the interest of provincial coaches. This summer his hockey coach
requested him to play with the under 18s.
Logan
tried out for the High Performance Program this year and made second cut for the
HPP NL team. After only four years of playing hockey, Logan is beyond thrilled
with the opportunities he's been given and anticipates another great season.
Logan is very grateful to his family, his coaches and teammates and peers for
their support and encouragement.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me in wishing Logan much success as he continues to
pursue his love of hockey.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I sit in
this hon. Chamber today to recognize the Ride for Andrew Smith, which was held
on September 18 in the beautiful town of Arnold's Cove.
This
charitable event was organized by Mr. John Barrett and was in aid of a young
man, Andrew Smith, who was involved in a life-changing car accident that has
left Andrew confined to a wheelchair. The fundraising goal of this event was to
raise enough money to purchase a custom motorized wheelchair for Andrew so he
could travel the community to visit friends and family.
The
event, which had 55 motorcycles, the fire truck from the Arnold's Cove Volunteer
Fire Department and many other vehicles from the community, travelled around
Arnold's Cove and then proceeded to Vernon's Antique Car Museum in Swift
Current. The ride then returned to Arnold's Cove where they had a reception at
the local Lions Club.
The Ride
for Andrew raised a total of $9,280 towards his wheelchair, which is now in the
purchasing stage.
I invite
all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation for the people of the
Arnold's Cove area for coming together and ensuring Andrew got his new
wheelchair.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
In 2007,
Toby Obed began a journey toward healing as lead plaintiff of the residential
class-action lawsuit against the federal government and testifying about trauma
he suffered at a residential school.
Moulded
by loss and trauma, taken from his family at age three, he doesn't remember his
family fighting back; he only remembers their cries when he was taken from his
home. Since then Toby has never had a home.
His
journey was filled with physical, emotional and sexual abuse. He aged out of the
system at 16. Turning to alcohol, in 1993 he passed out in a snowbank. At 50
below, Toby's liver and kidneys were frozen. Waking up from a coma two months
later, he had no feet and no left arm below his elbow. Toby's scars are physical
and emotional.
Moulded
into a strong advocate, he advocates for affordable housing, the ability for
families to heat their homes and feed their children. He challenges all levels
of government.
He
shares his memories of abuse so no child will ever have to hear their parents
cry as they are removed from their home; so children can have a home, surrounded
by their language, culture and love. All of which was taken from him.
Please
join me in applauding Toby Obed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, with leave.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you to all my colleagues for granting leave.
Speaker,
today, I would like to recognize a very brave little girl from my district,
seven-year-old Olivia Parsons of Shearstown.
Olivia
loves unicorns, school, her friends and her favourite pastime is playing and
spending time with her four sisters. She's full of energy, love and kindness.
But just
before the close of last year's school year last spring, Olivia started to feel
unwell. Following medical appointments and blood work, Olivia was diagnosed with
leukemia.
She was
admitted to the Janeway hospital to begin treatments immediately. Needless to
say, life changed for the entire family. But as challenging as this new journey
has been, her parents, Allan and Jessie, say their seven-year-old daughter
demonstrates outstanding strength and positivity every day.
The
communities of Shearstown - Butlerville and surrounding areas in Conception Bay
North have rallied around Olivia and her family, supporting them with
fundraisers, fire truck parades and a family fun day with a community softball
game and live, local entertainment.
Today, I
ask that all hon. Members here in the House of Assembly join me in commending
Olivia for her courage, strength and determination. Olivia, we are all behind
you, wishing you a full recovery.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
would like to highlight the 70th anniversary of the Arts and Letters Awards
Program and to remind artists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that this
year's submission deadline is November 19.
As one
of government's flagship and most popular arts programs, the Arts and Letters
Awards were initiated in 1951 when the then-Minister of Education Samuel J.
Hefferton convened a meeting of prominent citizens to explore the possibility of
promoting wider interest in cultural activities. Subsequently, in 1952, this
annual series of arts awards was launched.
Today,
the program continues to stimulate and celebrate creative activity by providing
62 cash awards, adjudication of all submissions by professional artists and the
opportunity for winners to participate in a group exhibition at The Rooms.
The Arts
and Letters Awards Program is open to both emerging and established artists in
junior and senior divisions. Categories include: music, literary, visual art and
multimedia. As well, the program includes the Percy Janes First Novel Award,
which honours the life and work of one of Newfoundland and Labrador's most
distinguished writers by awarding a cash award for an unpublished novel.
Speaker,
I encourage all creative, artistic-minded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
consider making a submission for this program. More information can be found on
the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation's website.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
The
Official Opposition supports the Arts and Letters Awards Program and
congratulates the program on its 70th anniversary. The program has been and is
continuing to support artists throughout by awarding of prizes in a variety of
categories.
This
program throughout the years has encouraged and developed our cultural
creativity in the form of books, multimedia and the visual arts. This province's
artists, many from within the District of Bonavista, are well known throughout
the country and the world for their works and it's through programs like this
that has enabled them to continue their passion.
Seventy
years is a long time to all those who had adjudicated during this time and a
huge thank you from all of us in the province.
We
encourage all artists to participate in this year's competition – and as the
minister stated the November 19 deadline – and to submit your work for
consideration. It may be your stepping stone to future success.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I would
like to encourage any artist listening to make a submission to the Arts and
Letters Awards Program. Reward recognition for your work is not easy to come by
so please don't miss this opportunity.
If we
want our artistic community to continue to flourish, we need to invest more in
accessible spaces for artists and more venues to showcase their work. Like I
mentioned before during the debate on the budget, we need to start looking at a
tax-rebate program for young artists who are also coming up through the system.
I
encourage government, the private sector and the public to show continued
support for artists in this province, many of whom saw their livelihood affected
by this current pandemic.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
pleased to take this opportunity today in the House to recognize primary,
elementary and secondary teachers in all disciplines who've demonstrated
exceptional innovation in instruction or compassion in teaching.
Last
week, the Premier and I announced the first-ever recipients of the Premier's
Award for Teaching Innovation and the Minister of Education's Award for
Compassion in Teaching.
The
Premier's Award recognizes teachers who have demonstrated innovation in
instruction and who have gone above and beyond to find innovative ways to
deliver the curriculum resulting in greater educational outcomes for students.
The
Premier's Award recipients are: Colin Barry of St. Matthew's school; Matthew
Grant of Holy Trinity High; Stacey Hopkins of Leary's Brook Junior High; Lindsay
Janes of Crescent Collegiate; Celine Monnier of E'cole des Grands Vents; and Sam
Paterson of Brookside Intermediate.
The
Minister of Education's Award for Compassion in Teaching recognizes
inspirational and compassionate teachers who have gone above and beyond to
support the social, emotional and mental health of their students, colleagues or
school community as a whole.
The
Minister of Education's Award recipients are: Pamela Avery of Swift Current
Academy; Kim Bonnell of Eric G. Lambert School; Nathalie Brunette of Macdonald
Drive Junior High; Erin Coates of Mount Pearl Senior High; Dustin Rideout,
ConnectED; Gail Spicer, St. James Regional High; Catherine Tansley, Mount Pearl
Intermediate; and Sara Toope, Beachy Cove Elementary.
Speaker,
I ask all Members of the House to join me in recognizing the recipients and, in
fact, all educators throughout the province for their dedication and
contribution. Like the rest of us, teachers have been impacted considerably by
COVID-19 and I commend them for their adaptability and willingness to put
students first.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I'd
like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Speaker,
my colleagues and I join the minister in congratulating these teachers for
excellence in their profession and for being role models in society. Anything we
can do to celebrate and promote the qualities these teachers exhibit is to be
celebrated. They have shown strong, innovative ideas and compassion in teaching.
Speaker,
the ability to inspire and shape your minds is perhaps one of society's greatest
callings. These winners have demonstrated outstanding commitment to their
classrooms, schools and indeed our community. They have gone above and beyond
and I want to thank each one of these deserving individuals.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I thank the minister and
the Premier, too, for instituting these awards for teachers.
Teachers
in this province go above and beyond every day. During the pandemic, they
stepped up when there didn't seem to be a plan, and even now they continue to do
so, not just as educators but as social workers, mentors to fill the gaps when a
lack of resources might mean a child falls through the cracks.
We
recognize the many burdens placed on our teachers and we owe these award
recipients and all teachers our sincerest thanks.
Again, I
thank you for instituting these awards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to acknowledge the government's new conference this morning, which offered more
clarity than has been offered prior to today. It may have taken five days and a
dozen questions here in the House but we thank you for listening.
I ask
the minister: Can you give some sort of timeline for when we might return to
normal in our health care system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
It
continues to be a difficult time. I want to recognize the work of Mr. Hepditch
and his staff at the Centre for Health Information, as well as all our health
care providers who, once again, have stepped up to deal with yet another totally
unexpected and unprecedented issue.
In terms
of restoration of services, that is a staged process. Mr. Hepditch said it would
take at least several days to begin that process and it has to be done in a
staged fashion to ensure any unknown factors in the machine are dealt with as
and if they arise to prevent any further occurrence.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We do
acknowledge there are stages that have to happen here, but we want to keep
reiterating that people are in peril here and we need to move as quickly as
possible and all the resources that are necessary need to be put into this.
Speaker,
in this morning's conference the word “rebuild” was used a number of times to
describe some of what is happening to repair the situation.
Does the
minister have any timeline for how long it will take to rebuild the province's
health information system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Without
giving away anything that would be unwise to mention, this process has already
begun and is instrumental in being able to move us onto the next steps of
bringing in our most critical systems first.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, the Deputy Premier indicated she does not see the situation at an
emergency, yet the four regional health authorities have activated their
emergency operations centre. A cybersecurity expert based in Fredericton is
publicly declaring this cyberattack the worst in Canadian history.
I ask
the Deputy Premier: Do you believe the situation is an emergency?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
You
know, our hearts are with and our efforts are for the many patients, families
and the health care providers that are caught up in this situation, and has as
been determined this morning it is definitely a cyberattack. This is very
difficult. All of our focus right now is on restoring services and making sure
we get those services up as quickly as possible.
I can
certainly say that for those that are involved in this particular situation, it
is an emergency; it's very difficult for these patients, for these families and
for health care in general. We're going to continue to work as determinedly and
as diligently as we can to restore the service as quickly as possible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
say that the Official Opposition sees this as an emergency and we need to treat
it as one and address it as one.
Speaker,
we recognize this extraordinary event remains ongoing, we're in the middle of
this event but we have to be ready for the next one.
I ask
the government: Will you commit to a full public review of this incident to
inform increased cybersecurity measures to prevent the next one?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Certainly, Speaker, our
provincial emergency operation centres are up and operational. I think that the
public has been well informed by Eastern Health, by the department as to the
processes that we're undertaking. We're trying to move through this as
expeditiously as possible.
Obviously, as a security matter, we can't go further into disclosing information
or further details, I'll certainly say that. We have committed, in this House,
to do a full debriefing once we understand what has occurred, how it has
occurred and how we're handling it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the Deputy Premier for at least acknowledging that we need to do more to be
prepared for the next one and we will diligently keep continuing to push to make
sure that we're ready for whatever happens in the future.
Today,
Western Health's operations were halted, much like the other regional health
authorities.
I ask
the minister: Was this change made purely out of caution or because Western
Health's system maybe more compromised than initially thought?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
The information I have and
that was provided at the briefing this morning by the VP from NLCHI was that
this was done out of an abundance of caution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
With
chemotherapy appointments in Western now being cancelled until at least the end
of the week there are a lot of people feeling uneasy in our province at one of
the most difficult moments of their lives.
I ask
the minister: What extra measures are being put in place now to ensure cancer
care can hit the ground running once this attack is over?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
There
are two centres in Western Health that are still able to provide service and
those services continue uninterrupted. I have spoken with Mr. Diamond, Eastern
Health runs the provincial cancer care program, each appointment that has been
deferred or moved is examined by the appropriate medical oncologist, the
clinician in charge each day to see what priority and how long these people
could or should wait before bringing them back in.
It is
not safe, currently, to offer services in certain areas because of uncertainties
around the infrastructure piece. As soon as those are remedied and our critical
systems are back online that will make life a lot easier for everybody; they
have my sympathies and support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
They
have our sympathies, but we want to echo – and I've echoed this to the Premier –
they have our support. If there are extra resources or anything that needs to be
done, we are here on this side of the House to support the government in moving
that forward and providing those services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the CEO of Eastern
Health today referred to those who have travelled long distances, particularly
from Labrador, only to have their appointments cancelled.
I ask
the minister: Will you show leadership by fully covering the extra costs
incurred by these people through your Medical Transportation Assistance Program?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Certainly, we welcome the offer of assistance from the Members opposite – very
much appreciate it.
As far
as those individuals who have travelled long distances are concerned for
investigations and procedures that they weren't able to avail of, we will not
count this against their liabilities under the MTAP program; it is a
reimbursement program. Obviously, the income support clients are fully
reimbursed anyway.
Anybody
who feels that they have some special circumstances we need to be aware of, they
can bring those to our attention and they will be viewed sympathetically.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
think in this situation they are all unique and all should be covered 100 per
cent, based on the principle here that they were not at fault. This
unfortunately happened outside of their (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the Cameron inquiry
gave recommendations on proactive disclosure for government in a crisis.
I ask
the minister: Do you feel you met the recommendations of the Cameron inquiry
over the last five days?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
As soon
as we became aware of the possible nature of the issue, we engaged expert
advice, world-class advice. We informed the appropriate authorities and, quite
frankly, Speaker, we have followed their advice, which is to limit our comments
to those concerned with operational impact, mitigation and concentrate on
dealing with the challenges the people of this province face.
Speaking
about matters of cybersecurity in any venue, particularly a public one, is
totally inappropriate and we will stick with that advice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, the minister indicated that chemo patients have been reviewed and
priority established.
I ask
the minister: When will chemo be fully restored?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
impossible, currently, to give a definitive date. Obviously, if this starts to
extend beyond a period that the medical oncologists feel is safe or wise, then,
we will, through Eastern Health, look to operationalize them attending as urgent
or emergent patients.
Currently, I have not been advised of any cases where that needs to happen at
the moment. It's a discussion we discuss at least twice a day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, the minister said patients with cancelled appointments whose
condition changes should follow up with their primary care provider.
Speaker:
What are the 100,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without a family doctor
supposed to do?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Those
people who have been referred into the acute care system for investigation or
are going to specialist opinions will have had a primary care provider or a
specialist provide that referral and order that test. That is their first point
of call.
Those
physicians working at private offices have not had their operations impacted in
the same way as the regional health authority and they remain ready; otherwise,
there is 811. Also, I use this opportunity to emphasize that for people who are
acutely unwell, emergency services are still fully functional.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Speaker, my office has heard
of a woman who had successful IVF a few weeks ago in Calgary, but has
encountered serious complications. When she showed up to her urgent ultrasound
she was told she wasn't emergent. I can't imagine the stress that this crisis
has placed this family under.
When are
urgent appointments going to resume?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Any case
deemed urgent by the referring clinician, my understanding is those are being
done. This sounds like a communications failure. If the Member opposite wishes
to supply me with details and consent, I would happily look into it for him.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I have
many instances like this, so there's been a communications failure many times,
apparently.
Speaker,
today we learn another Newfoundland and Labrador hospital does not have any
doctors. This time, the brand new Green Bay Health Centre in Springdale will
have zero doctors on site this coming Friday, diverting patients to Grand
Falls-Windsor.
Speaker,
the Premier and the minister just cut a ribbon on their multi-million dollar
piece of infrastructure that does not have staff.
Again,
when is the government going to address this crisis of physicians in this
province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Contingency plans have been put in place by Central Health to cover this
situation. We have committed very recently to further enhancements to physician
and health care provider recruitment with a package totalling some $30 million.
Prior to
that, however, we had been working with the Medical Association – for example
with the Family Practice Renewal Program – on local initiatives to recruit and
retain doctors. It is important to stress that even under the circumstances the
Member opposite described, emergency care is available, both on site.
Transportation is also available. If you are unwell call 911.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
good to hear the $30-million figure tossed around again and again, but there's
not action happening. They're still without doctors.
Speaker,
patients, residents and community leaders have spoken out about the ongoing
physician crisis in the Green Bay area. Now, entire communities are on edge
about what will happen in case of an emergency when an ambulance will drive
right by the brand new hospital in Springdale, adding over an hour to the drive.
Speaker, minutes if not seconds matter at these moments.
I ask
the minister again: When will a full complement of doctors be in place at the
new hospital in Springdale?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Recruitment and retention of health care providers, particularly physicians, to
rural and remote areas is a challenge across the globe, it's a challenge across
Canada and it has been a persistent challenge in Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have contingency plans in place, including the availability of advanced care
paramedics in the area.
We have
on a medium term arranged for the establishment of collaborative care teams, at
least one in Central and one in Western, with the options hopefully of more even
by the end of the fiscal year. The long-term strategy is that which we had laid
out quite clearly a couple of Mondays ago. I would argue that recruitment for
those positions, for a provincial recruitment program is under way.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Now that
the government has confirmed that we were indeed the victims of a cyberattack on
critical government IT infrastructure, I ask the minister: Will she commit to a
full external security audit of the government systems?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of our cybersecurity and protecting the government IT assets, we have a range of
providers and solutions in place. We are continuously looking to see best
practices and getting external feedback in terms of how we can improve our
security, Mr. Speaker.
This is
an ongoing activity that's part of every piece of IT work that happens. This is
extremely high priority for us, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you.
Since
the minister has refused to answer if an external security audit has been
conducted on her watch, we can only assume that the review from 2015 that was
commissioned by the OCIO, as posted on their website, was the last time it was
done. The recommendations in that report are redacted so the minister is not
divulging anything that will compromise security by answering the question.
Were the
recommendations in this report implemented?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
exactly sure of which report the Member is talking about. There is an AG report
– Auditor General's report – where there are nine recommendations for the OCIO,
of which all were done except for one.
That
recommendation that is kind of ongoing is the Auditor General recommended that
we not hire external consultants and use internal staff where possible, which we
certainly do. It's just we can't always find internal staff here to join our
OCIO team. We do have to augment our services with consultants in order to make
sure that we have appropriate services for the people of the province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, considering that
health authorities have activated their respective emergency operations centres,
I ask the minister: What role is your department playing at the provincial
emergency operation centre to ensure core government agencies, boards and
commissions are secure?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Our
teams have reviewed and are closely monitoring all of our systems to make sure
at the moment there are no out-of-the-ordinary things to report in terms of core
government IT. The OCIO experts are working with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Centre for Health Information. They have our full support in anything they need.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
One of the initial criticisms
of the Irish government during the cyberattack was that their head of IT
security was vacant. We're aware that there are at least three vacancies related
to IT security in our core government.
Is the
OCIO short staffed when it comes to dealing with IT security?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
recommend the Member check out the OCIO Estimates from June 2021 where we talk
about this very challenge. We do overcome this by managed services and bringing
in consultants.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
We did see that it was short
staffed when we checked; there are three vacancies. We'd like to see those
filled and not be able to shop them out.
Speaker,
I ask the minister: Does OCIO have any managed service contracts similar to the
arrangement that Health has with Bell?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm sure
the minister would be happy to answer that question more fulsomely. I would like
to add, though, that on last night's news there was a computer security expert,
a professor at Memorial University and I'm going to quote from him. He said:
There's no reason to believe that there's anything the Department of Health, or
NLCHI or anyone else did that made them more vulnerable than any other
organization. He also went on to say: It was good to hear the minister talk
about the extensive backups that were taken; these are good words to hear.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, we would like the people of the province to understand what the
computer security experts say. We'll continue to work to ensure safety and
security of our computer systems.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for that answer, but I think that what we've heard from across the
way is that we're not sure yet what caused it all. We know there was a
cyberattack but we don't know – or if you do know, we haven't been told – what
exactly caused it so we'll wait to hear more information on that.
Yesterday, when speaking to the media, the minister said there would be no
impact to payroll for employees of the regional health authorities.
I ask
the minister: Can you confirm that people will get paid based on their
timesheets and their hours worked?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
health authority employees will be paid on time this pay period.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Good to hear, Speaker.
We are
concerned that this cyberattack may have spread into the payroll system as many
systems are down.
So,
again, I ask the minister: What contingency plans are in place in the event
payroll operations have been affected by this attack?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The RHAs
have what we would call downtime protocols; these are usually in place for
periods when there is planned cuts or reduction for upgrades in maintenance.
These are currently in effect. As we work through the rebuilt process,
obviously, it will become clearer whether or not there has been any impact there
and, if so, of what nature. Once we know that, we'll be able to activate further
contingency plans, if necessary.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Have you explained the contingency plan to pay employees to the
union leadership so that they can be satisfied that their members will be paid
on time and accurately?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
The short answer there is
yes. Our union colleagues have been extremely supportive and offered to help in
anyway they can. They understand the nature of the situation in which we find
ourselves, and I would like to thank them for their help.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, we recognize that
there is a big effort going to have to be made for the restoration of health
services. We know expertise is required in these situations, we know long hours
and overtime will be needed to address these concerns.
I ask
the minister: Are there any early estimates for how much this situation may end
up costing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
As this
is a security matter, we don't want to compromise any efforts that are underway
so I'm going to say to the Member Opposite and to all people listening: We are
very focused on getting our systems up and running again and on restoring
service. That is our focus right now. We are fully prepared. We have engaged the
experts that are needed and we're fully prepared that it may cost us something
here in the province to restore the service – to bring in this expertise.
Mr.
Speaker, we really want to make sure the patients, the families and the health
care providers are cared for and that is our focus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I couldn't agree
with the minister more, that indeed should be our focus and, once again, we
recognize this is an extraordinary situation that may require an extraordinary
response.
We, in
the Opposition, are willing to forgo constituency week if extra emergency funds
are required to help us through this situation by way of a special warrant or
anything.
I ask
the minister: Are emergency funds required to help get this province through
this situation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
At this
point in time, there is no necessity for a special warrant. We certainly have
the funds available at this point in time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
Estimates, when referencing the need for new fire protection equipment, an
official said: There is a great need, there is no doubt, right across the
province.
Can the
minister inform this House how many fire departments are operating with outdated
emergency equipment?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you for the question, Speaker.
Yes,
there are applications every year for fire trucks and fire equipment throughout
this province. Unfortunately, due to the fiscal constraints, the applications we
received last year were valued at over $18 million and we've budgeted almost $3
million for that.
There
have been fire trucks given out throughout the province this year and, in fact,
I signed dozens of letters yesterday for fire equipment that's going out to
districts throughout the province; Members on both sides of the House will be
happy with the letters that they'll be getting.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the answer from the minister. I look forward to some of that coming
to my district, as well.
Speaker,
having up-to-date fire protection equipment is key to ensuring the safety of our
firefighters. It also helps to lower the insurance premiums for the residents of
our communities.
How many
communities are operating with vehicles that are currently over 20 years old?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Again, thank you for the question.
I'll
just reiterate what I said. There are obviously fire departments throughout this
province that have made requests for fire trucks and fire equipment. We're doing
our best within our fiscal constraints to deal with all those applications. But,
again, there was 60 applications at $18 million this year. Funds have went out
for equipment and for trucks, and they'll continue to go out in the next few
years.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
Health Canada has authorized COVID-19 vaccines for children age 12 and over and
it's only a matter of time before children five to 11 are included.
Given
the recent cyberattack, is the Department of Education working on a contingency
plan with the Department of Health to ensure that any vaccine rollout for
school-aged children is not delayed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
We have
plans in place for rollout of vaccine for the five- to 11-year-olds as soon as
it's released to us. Our order is in and we have been guaranteed, I think,
34,000 doses in the first instance. We are able to deliver those regardless of
the state of the IT infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Education: How much of the decision not to provide extra buses
to transport students to and from school is based on the advice of Public
Health? How much of it is a calculated budget-based political decision not to
invest in necessary resources to keep our school community safe?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member opposite for his question. The advice comes from Public
Health, Mr. Speaker. We follow the advice of Public Health. Public Health has
advised that it was safe to go back to regular busing this year and that is what
we've done.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you.
The
minister maintains he's following the advice of Public Health. This week,
teachers in a metro area primary school had to cancel a field trip. Even though
the students arrived to school on one bus, the NLESD said the field trip could
only proceed if the school hired three separate buses so students could maintain
their cohorts.
I ask
the minister: Who is actually following the advice of Public Health, your
department or the NLESD?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
The NLESD.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
So will the minister now
agree that, like the NLESD, he has within his discretion to err on the side of
caution and implement measures above what are recommended by Public Health?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
department and the NLESD follow the guidelines of Public Health. We always have.
We will continue to. They've guided us very well, Speaker.
I'm not
aware of the situation that the Member brings forward but if he'd like to share
the information I will certainly speak with the NLESD and find out the correct
details of that situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The high
cost of food in my communities is resulting in many families going hungry.
Chronic hunger is ruining many lives.
Will the
Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs commit to working with the
Department of Transportation and the Premier to return a direct marine freight
service from the Island to our North Coast communities?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
my colleague for the question. Food security is a concern and that's why, as a
government, in our platform, I believe, we had stats there to increase our food
security by 20 per cent. I know in Labrador we're only growing about 1 per cent,
and there is tremendous need.
Mr.
Speaker, we're certainly open to working with our colleagues on all sides of the
House to find solutions and to advance and to support people, whether it's
through Income Support, whether it's through subsidy. I've actually been to
Ottawa twice meeting with officials up there and we've had some success in
getting food items added to the Nutrition North program to help make food costs
sustainable for people on the North Coast.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
The high cost is reflected in
the stores, Speaker.
Labrador's level of health care is unacceptable. Lives are being lost as a
result of acute and chronic failures to provide adequate health care services.
So I ask
the minister: Will this government work to designate Labrador as its own health
authority, allowing for adequate health care resources to be centrally placed in
Labrador instead of on the Northern Peninsula?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
A very
timely question given that the Health Accord NL is currently in the final stages
of its consultations, which have been extensive, and included Indigenous and
Labradorian input in quite significant ways.
I wait
with interest their recommendations about any changes or direction that we could
take on governance, and certainly the Member's views opposite have been noted, I
think, in their deliberations.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Health Accord has not consulted with the public in my district, make note.
Mr.
Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transportation in April to provide an update on
the prefeasibility study for the road to the North Coast, but he could not at
that time.
So I ask
him again: Can he provide an update for me now?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you for the question.
In terms
of status of the feasibility study, as the Member is aware, we allocated
$200,000 for that study for a road to the North in the budget of '20-'21, and we
are currently preparing the terms of reference for the study. We anticipate
releasing the RFP before the end of this year.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice of the following resolution:
That in
accordance with Standing Order 8(8), notwithstanding the Parliamentary Calendar
issued by the Clerk for 2022 or any Standing Order to the contrary, the
Parliamentary Calendar for the spring 2022 sitting of the House shall be
modified as follows:
That
this House will meet in accordance with the daily schedule prescribed in the
Standing Orders, as follows: From March 15, 2022, to March 17, 2022, inclusive;
from April 4, 2022, to April 14, 2022, inclusive; from May 2, 2022, to May 19
inclusive; from May 30, 2022, to June 2, 2022, inclusive; and that the week of
May 23 shall be a constituency week.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that
this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 4, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I bring
forth the following petition:
We, the
undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, bring the
attention to the House of Assembly to the following:
WHEREAS
in accordance to the document The Way
Forward on Climate Change the province is already experiencing the effects
of climate change; NL joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and
Climate Change in 2016 but it is not on track to meet our 2020 targets;
financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact
municipalities due to responsibilities set out in the
Municipalities Act, 1999;
THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
government to: Declare a climate emergency; establish a task force on decreasing
the effects of the climate crisis while building community resilience; and
consider climate in all policies and decision-making.
Mr.
Speaker, I brought this one forth before. Actually, many hon. Members in this
House have brought forth this one before. We are experiencing climate change;
you can see it everywhere. This was the first winter in many, many years, longer
than I have been here, that Labrador West never had snow on Halloween. We only
had a little dusting the day after.
My wife
couldn't even believe it. She was sending me pictures. She said she just
couldn't believe that the kids didn't have to wear snowsuits under their
costumes. It was actually a nice evening out. Then it rained but (inaudible). It
was something that has not been seen in our area before. Our neighbours next
door in Fermont, I seen some of them had posted the same thing that many of them
up there couldn't believe that there was no snow on Halloween.
We're
facing climate change in Labrador, twice as much as the Island of Newfoundland.
Climate change is actually hitting Labrador harder than even the Island part of
this province. We rely on winter in Labrador very substantially. It's a massive
part of our culture. It's a massive part of our transportation. It's a massive
part of the way of life for Indigenous people and Labradorians.
This is
very serious. I believe this is very serious and we need to take it very
seriously, that we need to be doing everything in our power as a government, as
a people, as a nation to effect this. Like I said, there is the COP26 there
going on now and you just laugh at all the people showing up in private jets and
all that, too, but that's another thing for another day.
But at
the same time, it's just that we have to take this more seriously than we are
right now. We are in a climate emergency. We are facing this down and the
Minister of Energy did actually mention that he does agree that this is probably
one of the greatest challenges facing us as a province going forward. And it is.
It's not a joke. It's a serious, serious matter. And these are –
SPEAKER:
Order!
Time has
expired.
J. BROWN:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change for a response.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the hon. Member for the petition and I couldn't agree more; we fully
understand that the decisions we make today have far-reaching and long-lasting
impacts on not just our community but the entire global community.
This is
the make-or-break decade of our time so we've got to push as hard as we can.
We've made numerous changes. We've invested through the Low Carbon Economy
Leadership Fund with our federal colleagues. Many different announcements with
partnering with municipalities throughout our province, whether it be waste
management in the Burin Peninsula; whether it be Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander for
a $4.7-million investment for climate change; whether it be fuel switching out
in Port aux Basques to the sports complex out there; whether it's going to be
the announcement that we will be doing in the next couple of weeks in Lab West.
All of
those are going to make impacts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and I'm
glad that so many people in the House of Assembly are bringing this forward –
not just the people in the House of Assembly, but the people of our province.
Any change we make, regardless of how small it is, makes a difference and it's
compounded over time. So I'd encourage everyone to make those slight changes.
We have
two programs that we've announced in budget 2021-2022 for fuel switching in your
homes to move to electric from oil, and also moving to electric vehicles, which
is an important piece because transportation accounts for a lot of our
greenhouse gas emissions in this province.
I'm
happy that the hon. Member mentioned something about COP26 and I'm very excited
that –
SPEAKER:
Order!
The
minister's time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
the Shamrock Medical Clinic in Ferryland is without a nurse practitioner when
the single nurse practitioner is not on duty. Eastern Health cannot find a
replacement nurse practitioner to fill the gap when the current nurse
practitioner is off work. The people of this area are concerned that their
primary health care needs are not being met under the current plan that is
maintained by Eastern Health.
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to immediately address the lack of nurse practitioners in Shamrock
Medical Clinic catchment area by allocating a second nurse practitioner to the
Ferryland area so there is another nurse practitioner in place to address the
backlog of patients in the area.
There is
interest from local nurse practitioners to work out of the Shamrock Medical
Clinic if a second nurse practitioner position becomes available. Given the
driving distance from St. John's is over an hour, we call on the minister to
address this situation immediately by adding a second nurse practitioner to
ensure that these residents are not left behind.
Mr.
Speaker, I became aware of this last week, but for two weeks prior to that, the
nurse practitioner was off due to an illness or a family event or whatever that
may be and there was no one to fill in. So they had two full weeks of no one
there to take care of the needs of the constituents in the area. So it's very
concerning. When the nurse practitioner is unable to work, the people of the
area are left with cancelled appointments; therefore, losing their accessibility
to care. So one person had an appointment on a Friday, they rebooked it for the
following Friday and, again, couldn't get in. They had to call and cancel.
Now,
this week we did get some information that they were coming up on a Wednesday
and a Friday of this week. But there are nurse practitioners in the area that
are interested in filling a position, if they put one there, to become available
for the residents of the area. Then, to be able to alleviate that problem when
the original or the one nurse practitioner goes off on holidays or whatever it
may be, whatever family event comes up or some crisis, that there is still help
there to support the residents and the people in the community.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
going to sound remarkably familiar, but it is very much a problem, especially in
Labrador. I thank my colleagues from Torngat Mountains and Labrador West who've
already spoken to it.
We, the
undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, bring to the
attention of the House of Assembly the following:
WHEREAS
according to the document The Way Forward
on Climate Change the province is already experiencing the effects of
climate change. Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on
Clean Growth and Climate Change in 2016 but is not on track to meet its 2020
targets. Financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact
municipalities due to responsibilities set out in the
Municipalities Act, 1999.
THEREFORE your petitioners call upon this House of Assembly to urge the
government to declare a climate emergency, establish a task force on decreasing
the effects of the climate crisis while building community resilience and
consider a climate in all policy and decision-making.
I'd like
to thank my colleagues again from Labrador, because you know what, as I have
indicated in a private Member's motion and I referenced it again yesterday in
Question period – I want everybody to think about this – only 29 years from now,
if we don't aggressively tackle this the average temperature in this city will
be 3.4 degrees above normal; in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, six degrees above
normal; and in Nain, 7.3 degrees above normal.
Guess
what this means? It means Nain will have a warmer climate than the capital city
of this province. This is the reality. Until we take and make every single
decision we make as individuals, as communities, as provinces and nations, this
world is going to burn. The future generations, our kids – I think every one of
us should be thinking about that next generation that's coming right along
behind us. By the time they're 29 years older, they're going to be facing a
reality that is just going to be terrifying. We have to get a serious grip on
this.
I thank
my colleagues for continuing to speak on it. I recognize the minister in his
efforts. I'm going to tell him that he and the rest of Cabinet and everyone of
this Legislature need to get at this much more aggressively.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change for a response.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you to the hon. Member for bringing forward the petition again. That's the exact
reason why our Premier – being the first Premier in the history of the province
to go to COP – is there, because he understands how important it is. It's the
biggest issue that we've ever faced as a global community.
He's
there working hard to bring back insight into this, make partnerships, work with
individuals over there, countries and jurisdictions like us. We've created a
Net-Zero Advisory Committee that will help to keep us on task as well.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. I look forward to working with him and every
Member of this House of Assembly to get to where we need to be for 2030 targets
and 2050 targets.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I call
upon the Leader of the Third Party to introduce his resolution that will be our
private Member's resolution for today.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Moved by
me, seconded by the Member for Labrador West:
WHEREAS
the 2016 census showed that St. John's has the highest level of income
inequality in all of Atlantic Canada, with the top 1 per cent taking home nine
times more than the bottom 30 per cent and seven times more than the bottom 50
per cent; and
WHEREAS
Canadians from all parties and all walks of life, including CEOs, Senators,
doctors, community support workers and economists are now championing some form
of basic income program; and
WHEREAS
federal Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland, has called for a new deal in light
of the vast transformations occurring in our economy due to automation and
information technology –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Which see the bulk of the
productivity gains going to the wealthiest, while real wages stagnate and an
insufficient number of jobs are created to replace those lost to automation; and
WHEREAS
former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, echoed Minister Freeland's
comments in 2018, explaining how technology has decimated the share of income
going to workers, increased poverty and underemployment, with the effect of
hollowing out the middle class and replacing the work with more lower skilled
jobs, and the vast majority of productivity gains going to the wealthiest as a
result; and
WHEREAS
the federal government is already pioneering in the provision of income support
to those who need it through the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; and
WHEREAS
evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund found that when low- and middle-income
families received extra money every year they bought more education, clothing,
recreation and electronic purchases for their children, while giving more money
to the high-income families did not result in increased investment in their
children; and
WHEREAS
the current income support system amounts to a poverty trap and still leaves
many to fall through the cracks; and
WHEREAS
Canadian data from basic income pilot projects has shown that such programs
increase public health, foster improvements in nutrition, improve mental health
and well-being, lower the immense public costs associated with poverty,
encourage entrepreneurship and allow people to pursue education and training;
and
WHEREAS
the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has calculated that poverty costs
this province a total of $959 million in preventable health problems, crime,
lost productivity, foregone public revenue and intergenerational costs; and
WHEREAS
a poll conducted by The Gandalf Group on behalf of the Maple Leaf Centre for
Action on Food Security (June 28-30, 2021) indicated that significant support
exists among Atlantic Canadians and among all demographics for a basic minimum
income that would provide a safety net for all Canadians; and
WHEREAS
a 2017 study by the Roosevelt Institute showed that even a $1,000 payment to all
adults once a year would expand the American economy by 12.56 per cent over the
baseline after eight years and permanently raise the level of national economic
output; and
WHEREAS
this House voted last year to set up a Committee to study a pilot project on
basic income and create a timeline for its implementation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House consider truly ending poverty in this
province by establishing an all-party Select Committee on basic income, with a
mandate to review and make recommendations on: eligibility and minimum income
amounts, interaction with existing income supports, additional poverty reduction
initiatives, cost-benefit analysis, potential models for such a program and a
timeline for implementation;
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the House ensure this Select Committee has the resources
it needs to conduct its work;
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that this Select Committee engage federal Members of Parliament
from Newfoundland and Labrador to participate.
Speaker,
we probably wouldn't have reintroduced this again except for the fact that we
were unable to get any firm commitment from government to reinstate or to start
up this Committee.
Secondly, from our point of view, the issues of poverty, the effects on the
health care system are too dire to put off. We know that there's a good chance
that the Health Accord, Speaker, is going to bring in recommendations to address
the social determinants of health. If that's the case, then maybe what we need
to be doing is to start this process now because what this motion is calling to
do is to set up a Committee to look at this; to study it, come up with a pilot
project and look at implementing to get the information we need.
In many
ways, it's probably going to require a paradigm shift in how we look at things.
The best analogy I can think of is with regard to when learning to drive, when
it comes to skidding, going into a skid. The first instinct is to slam on the
brake and try to bring the car to a stop. All that does is it emphasizes or it
exacerbates the issues of the skid.
The same
thing here, whenever we hear something along the lines of the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of chatter is getting too loud; I can't hear the speaker.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
The same thing with regard to
any talk of a guaranteed basic income. The first instinct we have is, no, we
can't afford it. We just can't do this. It's out of our range. We have to find
some other measure. Again, we sort of slam on the brakes. What we end up doing,
in fact, is making matters worse. We know that the issue is too important; we
know that the Health Accord is heading this way as a strategy to address the
social determinants of health and the time has come so let's get ahead and
investigate.
We know
that the food banks are not an effective policy in dealing with poverty and,
trust me, I've been volunteering at food banks for well over 35 years in some
capacity or another. I think we need to get at the root of it.
We know,
also, that there's research by David Card that suggests that even raising the
minimum wage is not going to, in any way, shape or form, decrease employment or
increase prices or shut down businesses.
The
Gandalf Group, interestingly enough, did a survey of Canadians and Atlantic
Canadians on June 28 to 30, 2021 for the Maple Leaf Centre for Action on Food
Security. It's interesting – here are a few things that they asked. They found
that women aged 35 to 44, young men and those earning less than $25,000 a year,
were worse off than they were two years before.
They
found that there was an increased – the negative assessment was more so in
Atlantic Canada, they found. They also found that those earning less than
$25,000 a year felt they were – 24 per cent of that group felt they were
somewhat better than two years ago. But interestingly enough, about 77 per cent
of those earning $150,000 a year felt they were much better or somewhat better
off financially.
COVID
crisis, no doubt about it, impacted those who were already vulnerable to begin
with.
The
survey also showed that Atlantic Canadians agreed, by a whopping 71 per cent,
that it's time for government to seriously address social issues like poverty,
racism and inequality.
The same
study also showed that Atlantic Canadians are much more concerned about rising
prices of essentials. The number of Canadians, including children, who are
hungry, go hungry on a regular basis and the number of Canadians, including
children, who live in poverty. And that's the consequence.
When we
talk about poverty and food insecurity, we're talking about the effects on
children.
They
found in this study for Atlantic Canadians, that becoming a more caring and just
society was deemed to be either a 53 per cent very desirable or 36 per cent
somewhat desirable. So, in other words, there's a strong push that if we're
going to be a caring society, there's a strong support for that, to look after
each other.
By the
end of the survey, they found that 65 per cent of Atlantic Canadians versus 44
per cent of Canadians across the rest of the country supported a guaranteed
basic minimum income floor that would provide a safety net for all Canadians
Of
course, the support for this is greater amongst females. The support increases
with the older demographic so ages 75 and older, 84 per cent of that population
supports a guaranteed basic income; 86 per cent of those earning $25,000 or less
support some form of guaranteed basic income; whereas those earning $150,000, it
dropped by over 20 points.
Part of
that is probably because they're afraid of taxes and also, for many of us, this
survey found that most people in this country, 80 per cent, have never had to
face inadequate access to food. Many of us probably never had to really go
without one meal a day or go hungry and those who experience food insecurity
were mostly unable to access free or subsidized food program.
The
point here is this is the reality of having an inadequate income. The Health
Accord has basically focused on social determinants of health, that life
expectancy in Newfoundland and Labrador has decreased since the moratorium; that
cancer, cardiac issues, stroke increase mortality in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We spend
an enormous amount on health and little on social determinants of health, yet
the health care system only makes up 25 per cent of health. Michael Marmot said
that health is a good measure of social and economic progress. Let's start
addressing the underlying causes of poverty rather than funding the consequences
of poverty and keeping people poor.
Evelyn
Forget, a health economist, said, “you become aware very quickly that we use the
healthcare system to treat the consequences of poverty, and we do it in an
inefficient and expensive way … We wait until people live horrible lives for
many years, get sick as a consequence, and then we go in all guns blazing to
make things better.”
The
basic income here is at least trying to, as we suggested before, bringing up
especially the bottom 20 per cent to the next level even would save the health
care system significant savings and give people the opportunity to participate
in the economy and to feed themselves.
I'm
looking here at the monthly basic income benefits. A couple will receive, just
based on this, $14,388 a year. A single adult will bring in $11,724. Think about
that. That, I would say, is probably half the salary of many of us in this House
that we get for our pay. But $11,000, it seems like a significant amount, but
spread that over a year, roughly $1,000 a month, that's nothing – nothing.
I have
here as well – and I probably won't get a chance to go through all of them – a
number of personal stories – and I'll come back to them – of real life examples;
names have been changed, details have been changed – of people who are on income
support or on minimum wage and who are struggling.
The key
thing here, there are a number of options that are available to us. Whether you
look at it in terms of, I guess, the public cost of a guaranteed basic income,
whether it's going to be some form of a universal basic income or a negative
income tax model. However you want to look at it, it's a large topic. It's a
bigger issue than what we can accomplish here today.
What I'm
asking from the House today is that we at least start the process of exploring
it, of investigating the possibility of a guaranteed basic income plan. We've
seen in Ontario and Manitoba plans that have been successful and that have
merit, so let's look at what other jurisdictions have brought into play and
let's see how they can apply here.
I think
the problem is too big to do it just by tinkering or raising the income support
levels by a little bit here and there. I think we've got to be bold – to quote
the Premier, take bold initiative and take bold action. This is definitely going
to require us to go outside the box, but, Speaker, it will require us to take
action and solve this problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I do
believe there's strong support for this particular reference to study the issue
further. One of things that we recounted, we may recall from a previous
discussion or debate on a similar motion in the last session of the House is
that this is not uncomplicated.
I think
we all came to an agreement when we agreed to agree. It was a unanimous
agreement to take up this particular study. We agreed that it was complicated.
One of the factors that complicates it is there is very little definition. I
think it's fair to say, it's not pejorative to say that there's been
apprehension about defining what exactly is the public policy solution to ending
poverty, what exactly is the definition of such important concepts and somewhat
abstract concepts about what is a living wage, for example.
We took
up the discussion about how a living wage for someone who did not have
dependants, that may be in a station in life where their expenses were
relatively low. For example, such as a single younger person. Their living wage
is very, very different than what might reasonably be expected the requirements
of the provision of a living wage for someone whose expenses, whose cost of
living for their family unit is much higher. Someone having a lower income, but
many dependants.
So one
of the things that we will obviously want to advance is a discussion about what
are our basic definitions, what are our basic public policy objectives. This
particular motion, as the mover said themselves, it doesn't define whether this
is a universal basic income which would be examined, or a guaranteed basic
income which would be examined.
There is
a very important distinction and difference between the two. Universal basic
income, obviously, Speaker, would not be income-tested. It's universal.
Everybody, rich and poor, would be a recipient. Under the standardized
definitions of what a universal basic income – for those who embark on studies
and advocacy for this public policy, there is consensus that a universal basic
income would not be income-tested. Everybody, rich and poor, would receive it.
That's
very substantially different than a guaranteed basic income, where advocates and
academics alike, and public policy practitioners agree that a guaranteed basic
income is income-tested. This is a topic which has reached the national level –
I would think it is fair to say it would be an international discussion.
Certainly here in Canada, it has reached a national platform. The current
pandemic has brought attention to this matter even more clearly with the Canada
Recovery Benefit that has been introduced by the federal government that as
brought attention to this, and rightfully so.
Speaker,
what I think we need to do is not to limit the discussion in any way, shape or
form. I think it needs to be broad and open. We have experts we can draw upon
which may have differing of opinions, which may promote contradictory evidence
or analysis or opinion about this initiative. I think we should hear from them
all so that we can come to a confident resolve as to where we should be.
People
such as the Canadian parliamentary budget officer has done detailed work on a
guaranteed annual income and have provided estimates of cost and benefits,
obviously that would be a source. I do make note that in the prayer itself of
the motion that is before us today, the work of the parliamentary budget officer
is not mentioned. I just simply point that out, as we should not limit ourselves
as to what evidence we receive; we should be open and available from all sources
that provide good, strong, peer-reviewed, credible research on the topic. As
well as those who offer living experience to wage inequity, what it is to live
below the poverty level.
Mr.
Speaker, we can gain valuable insights to this because we know the parliamentary
budget officer has indicated that based on their modelling of the cost of a
guaranteed annual income supplement, based on the model that they would have
brought forward, would be approximately $1 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador
to implement. A billion dollars is not a small amount of money but neither is
the consequence of poverty. So any initiative towards poverty reduction,
obviously, would be offset or balanced by the positive influences and impacts of
people raising people out of poverty.
We know
that this would be a billion dollars in its broadest sense, as articulated by
the parliamentary budget officer, based on the modeling that they've presumed.
So, obviously, we would want to hear further to better understand what the
report that they tabled in the House of Commons, what that really means. What
are the elements? What is the substance behind that conclusion or that analysis?
We'd
also want to hear from poverty groups, but we'd also want to hear from employer
groups. We want to hear form everybody.
Mr.
Speaker, while I respect and appreciate the fact that the prayer of the motion
does highlight good, solid pieces of academic work and advocacy work towards a
specific outcome, it's important that we just, at this point in time, reflect
and analyze; we need to be eyes wide open and not to direct the conversation in
a particular way but to be open for a full discussion about all parameters of
where a guaranteed annual income would face.
Mr.
Speaker, it is, obviously, very important that we engage our federal partners.
There is a lot of evidence that comes from pilot projects, not only here in
Canada but I know that we're all very aware of the Dauphin, Manitoba pilot
project that was engaged back in the '70s and some of the new analysis of the
Dauphin, Manitoba pilot project.
We know
of some of the work in Ontario, which was arguably less successful and less
thought out and less well planned, but still we can draw on certain evidence or
certain facts from some of this work.
What we
also know is that this is a discussion that has reached important audiences at
the federal level. For example, one of our colleagues within the Liberal caucus
of the Parliament has put forward a piece of legislation, a private Member's
bill towards creating a strategy for a guaranteed basic income.
We also
know that an NDP Member from Winnipeg Centre has put forward a motion on the
floor of the House of Commons calling for a guaranteed national basic income.
But one of the things that I – and this is where we need to be very much
aligned, we need to be engaged, we need to influence some of these decisions.
One of the things with the NDP motion from Winnipeg Centre is that they called
for accounting for regional differences in living costs. So the NDP are saying
that we need to balkanize Canada, in some respects, and have a different
calculation for Toronto than it would be for St. John's. So caution needs to be
exercised when we start to do that, when the federal government starts to
consider that.
We'd
want to be involved in that discussion because, of course, sometimes their
calculation, their formula may not necessarily reflect the full realities of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes Atlantic Canada is referred to as a
homogenous place. It is not.
The
circumstances of Newfoundland and Labrador is very different than the Maritime
provinces. So it would be important, Speaker, that we can direct and have
influence on the federal level, but as well, any federal initiatives – any
initiatives at the national level are fed into our own initiatives so that we
don't trip up over each other. Because, of course, when you consider a cost, a
public purse cost of $1 billion with federal programs offsetting some of these
costs, with provincial programs offsetting some of these costs, potentially,
we'd want to be paired into that.
Mr.
Speaker, reflecting those points, the fact that we really want to be open. We
don't want to be seen or deemed to be exclusive in the direction of our
initiative, that we don't want to just simply take certain points of view,
certain academic evidence over others, I would like to propose an amendment to
the private Member's resolution, which seems to also bring it into what was on
the floor in the last session.
Mr.
Speaker, with that said, I will move, seconded by the Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair, that the private Member's resolution currently before the House
be amended as follows: In the clause beginning with the words THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, by deleting the words “by establishing” and substituting the words “by
urging the government to establish” and by deleting the word “Select” and by
deleting the final two clauses beginning with the words “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that” and substituting the following: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House
urge the government to ensure that the Committee has the resources it needs to
conduct its work and engage federal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and
Labrador to participate.
This is
my amendment.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
This
House will adjourn now to review the proposed amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We've
had an opportunity to review the amendment and we find the amendment to be in
order.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Seeing
that there is limited time left in my allotted time, I won't take up any –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Take your mask off.
G. BYRNE:
Oh sorry, I am told I am far
more attractive with my mask on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
G. BYRNE:
So, Speaker, I won't consume
any more time. I do believe there is strong consensus to support this within
both sides of the House, but we'll see when the time comes.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the Member across there for the amendment. I am glad to see that we have
continued support for researching and doing all this work on basic income and
other poverty reduction strategies. It is really important that we continue down
this path. We see it currently with the Health Accord and we see it in all kinds
of other work that has been recently published that we're going down the path to
make sure that we are helping the most vulnerable in our society.
The
pandemic has shown a lot of vulnerabilities in our society and in our social
systems. We see that across the country, across the globe, that people who are
vulnerable are actually more vulnerable than we ever expected. I'm glad to see
that we are going to take some leaps and bounds forward and I hope that when
this Committee is struck, it is struck expediently and it gets to work quickly.
Like the
Member for Corner Brook has said, this is also being talked about on a federal
level so we also want to be prepared for when that happens as a province. I
think that we, collectively as a province, have a very kind heart. We do believe
in helping others and helping up. Multiple times it has been said we are one of
the most charitable provinces in the federation, so let us continue down that
path of helping one another, hand in hand.
I am
glad that the Member said with his amendment to help strengthen this, but I do
move an amendment to the amendment. So we're going to have amendment-ception
here.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains, that the amendment to private
Member's resolution that is currently before the House be amended as follows:
After
the clause beginning with the words “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED” by adding the
following: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall consist of two
Liberal Members, two Progressive Conservative Members, two New Democratic
Members, one independent Member who will act as a Chair of Committee;
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee table a final report on its research and
recommendations to the House.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
This
House will recess to review the amendment to the amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Just for clarification, the
Member for Labrador West presented a subamendment to the main amendment. Upon
review of the subamendment, we do find that it is in order.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
everyone in the House for the recess on top of recess and bearing with us there
now. I think it's really important that we all work together on this as equals,
as a team, as a collaborative group. This goes beyond any politics or anything
like that; this is a very serious issue that we're facing. Poverty in our
communities is a very serious issue. Lumped on top of that with the continually
rising costs of goods, services and the ability to sustain oneself, we need to
continue to work together as a group collaboratively to face down this issue, to
find solutions and to help our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We're
very privileged to live where we live; we're very privileged that we do have a
great sense of community in this province. We all wear our hearts on our sleeves
around here and I think it's great that we collaboratively work together to
continue to do that. I think we can do some great work.
We have
done some great work in the past in this House, when it comes to Committees, to
get to the bottom of some serious issues. Some great work was done by the mental
health Committee. I know that was a very proud moment for all those Members who
participated in that. I think a Committee of equals, of people who want to work
together and to do the right thing for the people of this province is very
important. I do appreciate the government Members who have come out and
supported the ideas of this kind of work.
I also
want to say we do have some great research and stuff here, done by a lot of
academics across this country, across this continent and across the world, on
the importance of lifting people up, supporting them and helping them. Just
supporting people can make a big difference for their health, for their own
personal self-esteem and for the fact that they can participate in society
equally, with all of us. If we can do that, I think we can do some great work as
a province.
I think
we, as a province, have the ability to be a leader in poverty reduction. I think
we can be a leader in the fact that we can be a society of great individuals who
have opportunities. We just need to help those people reach those opportunities
and to find their feet again. It's great. Having the ability to participate in
society is great for mental health, it's great for personal health and it's
great for a sense of accomplishment. Sometimes people just want to have a sense
of accomplishment. That's where we should come in and be the hand that reaches
out and helps them.
So with
that, Speaker, I say thank you. Hopefully, the Members will support this
subamendment.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Just
before I begin, I just want to recognize those watching at Shirley's Haven in
Catalina. The last time I mentioned that, Speaker, it was probably a little past
11, at midnight, so I'm sure they weren't watching at that time. If Irene and
Wilson Duffett and all those who are at Shirley's Haven are watching, good for
them. I'm sure that they're interested in what we will be discussing.
On this
side of the House, we support the establishment of a Committee to look at and
explore the basic income options, but we think it ought to be studied in the
context of a Poverty Reduction Strategy. My learned friends and colleagues who
spoke before me, I was really shocked and surprised that neither one of them,
Speaker, mentioned the Poverty Reduction Strategy that was launched back in
2006, which was entitled Reducing Poverty:
An Action Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why I'm
surprised that they didn't mention it is because it was quite a successful
strategy that when they did their data analysis in 2013-'14, they made some
phenomenal inroads in reducing poverty in the province. That's available for all
to see. I'm sure that the Committee, when they embark upon it, that will be a
strategy they will study and hopefully be able to reflect upon and use large
components of it.
How
significant is poverty reduction in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, in this
past Budget Speech, they mentioned that there were 158,000 Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians on income supplement. So if we're 158,000 and if we're a population
of 520,000 thereabouts, then that puts us over 30 per cent of our population.
That is a significant number of population. In fact, before the aforementioned
Poverty Reduction Strategy that I had mentioned, we weren't at 30 per cent then.
I know that where we are now that COVID has compounded it. That is not within
our control and that's something that we're left to battle and to work with.
Poverty
reduction is a very complex issue and I think the minister had stated such. It
is very complex. I know when we were doing the all-terrain vehicles, I did some
research on Stats Canada and that's where I cited that there were 269,000
all-terrain vehicles. But in that same document, I had noticed that Newfoundland
and Labrador was the only province and/or territory that is projected to lose
population by '43. I thought initially when I looked at it, that we may be the
only province, but I thought that there may be territories that would be in a
similar situation, Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Nunavut, but if you search
Stats Canada you will find that its only Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that
is an issue that I know that we're moving on but we really have to make sure
that we do grow our population in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that would be
part of the umbrella of looking towards poverty reduction in our province.
We've
had the benefit of going through four meetings with the Health Accord team,
Sister Davis and Dr. Parfrey, and several things stood out in the presentation.
As a Member in the District of Bonavista, I always looked at our district in
Bonavista as a lens for whatever information that they were saying in the Health
Accord in the presentation, but a couple of things jumped out at me.
Probably
one of the things was that if you lived in the Province of Ontario, the
statistics stated that you got a greater chance of living 2.4 years longer than
what you do in Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought that's pretty significant
within the same country of Canada that they would live, generally, 2.4 years
longer.
The
other thing from the Health Accord, and it was mentioned by my colleague from
St. John's Centre, he mentioned about the social determinants, how important
they were when we look at our health care cost and providing care and try to
create our population to be the healthiest in the country by 2031. Just how
significant are these social determinants?
Well, in
the Health Accord they had stated that there were many determinants to draw upon
– and conscious of the time now I'm going to just give the treetops. They talk
about the conditions of childhood, income, education, employment security,
working conditions, food and housing security and availability of health and
social services. Then they looked at social locations. The social locations such
as Indigenous descent, social class, the disability, gender, race and immigrant
and refugee status are all part of the social determinants of health care.
But
here's what they state: 50 per cent of the health care in our province is
related to your life; your early childhood development, your education, your
social safety net, the community belonging, the housing, homelessness, safe and
nutritious food; 50 per cent of our health is based on our lives. If we have 30
per cent of our population, which is cited in the Budget Speech, 30 per cent on
Income Support, we know that they're going to struggle in a lot of those
determinants; 10 per cent was your environment, where you live; air quality;
civic infrastructure, such as clean water.
So it is
complex. Add up 50 and 10, that's 60 per cent of the social determinants are
outside of the health care control. Because what the Health Accord states is 25
per cent is related to your health care; 15 per cent, your biology. That is
rather significant.
The
VitalSigns came out – one week rolls
into the next week – probably the week before last,
VitalSigns came out and what they did was they did a – that's the
Harris Centre in MUN – study and they looked at the determinants as well. They
stated that eats fruit once a day, we ranked 10th of the 10 provinces; eats
vegetables once a day, 10th; physical activity, we were 10th, especially in the
age 18 plus. As far as smoking and alcohol, children living with lone parents
and lack of education, we were between eighth and 10th within the country.
I don't
say that to be alarming, even though the statistics may be alarming, but I do
state those statistics to say that the Committee and poverty reduction is a real
issue in Newfoundland and Labrador that ought to be prioritized and really given
consideration as to what we would do.
The
minister before me had spoken that we need to have our eyes wide open – and we
do – and we need to be cautious as to how we embark upon it and what we do. The
only thing I would say is we ought not to wait.
We can
say in the Budget Speech that we take small steps. But I would say, if those
figures are accurate, what is contained the Budget Speech, what is contained in
the Health Accord, what is contained in
VitalSigns, then I think we ought to be taking more than small steps now.
This
Committee is a good idea, which we support in whatever formation it would be,
and we should begin, in earnest, to make sure that we make inroads in fighting
poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When I
spoke about the sugar tax, one thing that consumed me on the sugar tax was that
it's going to inordinately hit those who can least afford it. That was my
understanding of which I would have voted against.
I know
in school we dealt with poverty. When I first became an MHA in 2019, I saw
poverty at a different level, a different schedule. Some of the homes that I had
visited, surprised me. And even though I did visit homes as a school
administrator, but some of the homes I did visit, they surprised me. And if I
know they have compromised health as a result of their living conditions, I
think it's quite obvious.
When we
talk about schools, one of the goals of the poverty reduction,
Reducing Poverty, our plan that was
launched in 2006, was the fact that education was paramount. It is. If we have a
10 per cent dropout rate or if we have a 10 per cent absenteeism rate, that is
huge.
If we
find that our children are not as active as what they are in other provinces,
Alberta and BC which would lead the way, that is huge and significant.
While
those may be challenging to remediate, there ought to be strategies ongoing to
make inroads to make sure that we are improving those statistics which are
really within full government control – or mostly within government control.
I just
want to spend a couple of remaining minutes mentioning about the poverty
reduction plan entitled Reducing Poverty:
An Action Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador that was released in 2006 and
some of the inroads that it did make.
I would
say it ought to be the cornerstone. The minister referenced Manitoba. He didn't
reference Newfoundland and Labrador in the statistics that occurred from 2006 to
2014. That's good data. It's here in Newfoundland and Labrador; use it, if it
was there. Find out what works because it didn't solve poverty. It didn't do it.
But the only thing we can assure is that it made inroads. There were vast
improvements at that time.
There
are other factors that contributed to that. I realize that that time and this
time, they are different times, but we certainly can tap into what worked and
what didn't work. What didn't work, don't use. What worked, reactivate it and
let's see if we can get that 30 per cent back down to 7 per cent which it was in
2013. If we can't get it to 7 per cent, let's get it to 15 per cent, because now
15 per cent of our population we've brought outside of the poverty range.
As a
statistic, back then in 2003, there were 63,000 people had low incomes; whereas,
in 2011, this number had fallen to 27,000 – a good statistic that we would have.
The
goals that this strategy had: “Goal 1: Improved access and coordination of
services for those with low incomes.” They found that government programs were
difficult to access; we're striving to improve that. That was one goal that they
had.
“Goal 2:
A stronger social safety net. Goal 3: Improved earned incomes.” They looked at
the low income tax reduction threshold and they played with that. “Goal 4:
Increased emphasis on early childhood development. Goal 5: A better educated
population.” A better education in our population serves us in a lot of
faculties.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time has expired.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. PIKE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member for St. John's Centre for bringing forward the private
Member's motion today. Collectively, we all must work together if we are to
reduce and eradicate poverty and explore the merits of income and finding better
ways of how we look after our most vulnerable in our society and ensuring that
there are appropriate safety nets, socially, as well as financial support.
The
Member for Corner Brook explained – ever-so eloquently, by the way – the number
of supports that exist throughout the provincial government but also at the
federal level. I really support the engagement of a Select Committee to ensure
that federal Members of Parliament would participate from Newfoundland and
Labrador in exploring anything that would be undertaken from a model to develop
basic income and explore how that could be undertaken because in Newfoundland
and Labrador, we have a number of benefits currently.
When the
last Poverty Reduction Strategy was undertaken, there were expanded benefits to
the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. There was the creation
of Supportive Living Community Partnership Program; a reduction in income tax
paid by low-income earners; and employment and education incentives.
Since
then we have seen, for example, under the Income Support Program, where there
were more than 10,000 bus passes provided to income recipients in the St. John's
metro area. This type of program is meant to provide to those who would be on
income support to be able to participate more wholly in the community, whether
it is being able to travel to various places in the community, pick up
groceries, participate in programs attached to the workforce or even to get to
hospital appointments.
My
understanding is that this engagement is also taking place with the City of
Corner Brook and now looking at bringing in this program as well.
As a
government, one of the things we did in 2016 was that we implemented the Income
Supplement to cover lower income earners in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well
as an Enhanced Seniors' Benefit. This, as well, was meant to provide support.
If you
look at those types of benefits – and there are many, many more benefits that
are provided within and across departments – at a social level to help people,
whether they are on income support or whether they're a higher income earner
that's been talked about in the Estimates, or whether it's for the Mother Baby
Nutrition Supplement for support, there is a threshold as to what somebody would
earn at a certain level before they wouldn't receive support, whether it would
be access to housing or a housing supplement.
The
federal government is certainly key to being part of a discussion on basic
income. As we have seen in other countries, Finland being one of them, with
their trial and the United States and other jurisdictions, the pandemic has
really highlighted the inequality that is now present in our Canadian society.
The federal government said from the start they would provide timely assistance
directly to Canadians to help them through the challenges that they face.
We saw
there was a mix of programs, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. That
helped businesses retain their employees so they could continue to earn a
paycheque to work to support their families. The Canada Emergency Response
Benefit helped nearly nine million Canadians be able to have support to pay
their bills for them and their families.
We saw
in a recent Throne Speech of the federal government there is going to be new
flexibilities in the Employment Insurance program: an EI premium freeze; three
new support programs that will provide $500 per week to support Canadians
impacted by COVID-19: the Canada Recovery Benefit; the Canada Recovery
Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit.
The
federal government has stated that they have a plan to build back better – the
three Bs. The pandemic, as I said, exposed fundamental inequalities in our
society and the federal government is planning to build a better society while
making the economy better for all.
There
are pillars that include ending chronic homelessness, accelerating universal
pharmacare and building more affordable housing. They are certainly very
important pillars as we look at reducing and eradicating poverty and ensuring
that people have a basic income to live on.
There
are already programs that exist as well. For seniors in Canada, they receive an
Old Age Security benefit. Some would receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement,
which is a form of basic income. As well as parents with children under the age
of 18 can receive Canada child benefit. These two programs would cost about $80
billion. The parliamentary budget officer has cited that national basic income
for low-income Canadians would cost about $43 billion per year.
If we
were to look at universal basic income, an alternative method to social support,
which basically every citizen is provided funding with no strings attached. This
idea has certainly seen significant resurgence with the COVID pandemic. Some who
are proponents of basic income argue it's the best way to end poverty. Those who
are proponents would say it does boost happiness, health, school attendance,
trust in social institutions and also reduce crime.
We have
seen in Ontario the former Liberal government launched a basic income pilot in
Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay to help 4,000 low-income people over the last
three years. In 2018, the current Progressive Conservative government cancelled
the project. Finland is a relatively new example where they provided about $640
per month as a basic income to their citizens. It highlights here in
The
New York Times that Finland's basic
income trial boosts happiness but not employment.
One of
the outcomes of the study is that it certainly gave some individuals in the
study the confidence to pursue entrepreneurship and other mechanisms, but it had
not necessarily had the employment-attachment incentive with it. This does not
mean that this would be the case, of course, here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You want to be able to create a program or basic income that would allow people
to have the ability where they may be able to take on work and not provide
consistent or regular hours. This is something that, of course, during COVID
came through as well, that the economy may be shifting, especially post-COVID,
and we continue to navigate through it. I think that's one way to do that.
These
are all important mechanisms we have to consider. This is why I think we need to
look at evaluating all these matters as how we reduce poverty. The inequality
and the insecurity that exist, how automation is playing a role in terms of jobs
in the future. How we can reduce the red tape and how we can continue to have
the right incentives and support for allowing people to be able to really have a
positive impact on the labour market.
With
that, Speaker, I want to say I fully support seeing an all-party Committee
struck, having this explored and looking at the options that can happen. Maybe
we can take all the programs that exist at a provincial level and a federal
level and really create something that can have a bigger impact than what the
programs currently have. And make sure that we are going forward at the
provincial or federal level in terms of exploring universal basic income and the
merits and benefits to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
start off by saying that we support this resolution to establish a Select
Committee to explore basic income options by gathering research and consulting
experts. Once we have the facts, we can make a determination collectively if
this is the way to go and how we go about doing it.
We
supported this PMR when it was debated in October of 2020, and we will support
it again today. We have no objection to the creation of an all-party Select
Committee on basic income. However, we believe that basic income should not be
studied in isolation, but should be studied in the context of developing a new
Poverty Reduction Strategy.
My
colleague from Bonavista has spoken about this, about the previous plan, and
certainly the need for a new plan. The province needs a new, wholesome, fulsome
Poverty Reduction Strategy which will look at all the factors which contribute
to poverty; which considers and evaluates strategies to help people who are
experiencing poverty; which has a goal of reducing and ending poverty in our
province; which includes stakeholders in the creation of a strategy and in
implementing the strategy; and which studies basic income, minimum wage, living
wage, job prospects, training and other employment-related considerations as
part of a poverty reduction.
One of
the things that we can do in addressing a Poverty Reduction Strategy is perhaps
look at how we increase those low-income tax reduction thresholds because the
more money we put in people's pockets, the better off they will be.
I think
we sometimes get caught up in the oversimplification of simply talking about
minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases will not end poverty. The
strategy has to be more wholesome and it has to talk about, as my colleague
already mentioned, the social determinants of health. Housing, for example, I've
said in this House before there are over 100 people on a list right now waiting
for housing with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. That's just my district. I
can only imagine what it's like across the Island.
We also
have many people come into my office – and I'm sure yours as well – who were are
on income support. They come in talking about how they need additional help, but
they also come in and say we'd like to get off income support, but we can't
afford to. Now, that's a scary statement for someone to say I can't afford to go
to work because I'll lose the benefits that I have on income support. That's
where it's important for us to sit down and talk about that. It's meant to be a
support. How do we continue to support them?
One of
the ways we can certainly look at that is to start talking about how do we allow
them to keep some of the benefits they enjoy on income support while getting
back and re-entering the workforce. Instead of clawing back dollar for dollar
when they go out and get a job, maybe it's time we started looking at a program
that allows them to earn some money, to get back in the workforce so we don't
pull back dollar for dollar. Once you reach a certain threshold or have been
working for a period of time, then we can start to ease back. Because that, in
itself, will encourage people to go back into the workforce. That's what we need
to create. We need to create a workforce where people can go back in and feel
comfortable re-entering the workforce.
We need
to talk about rewarding businesses, finding ways to incentivize businesses in
our province that hire full-time, permanent people with benefits. Many of the
large employers in our province do not do that. When we talk about reforming the
payroll tax, maybe there's a way of reforming it for people who actually go out
and hire full-time, permanent employees with benefits. For those large employers
that refuse to do that or create temporary positions, maybe it's time that the
payroll tax went up instead of down. I think there are ways of doing that.
Small
businesses need to be encouraged to hire more staff. Again, instead of simply
focusing on the minimum wage, we need to focus on those companies that employ
full-time people and give them benefits, and reward those who pay above a –
quote – minimum wage. Those are things that we have to start looking at: How do
we put more money in people's pockets? That in itself will help with this
particular challenge that we face.
The
mandate letter for the Minister of CSSD directs him to “lead the development of
a renewed poverty reduction strategy in consultation with stakeholders, experts
and community leaders.” We don't think there should be two processes happening
in isolation of each other, but the consideration of basic income and the
development of a new Poverty Reduction Strategy should all be part of the one
conversation.
The
Health Accord, again which my colleague has referenced, has identified poverty,
housing insecurity and food insecurity as areas of concern when looking at the
social determinants of health, noting that these impact a person's health. Thus,
we wish to follow their lead and to study the issue of poverty in the province,
and to put in place a plan to prevent people from experiencing poverty and lift
people out from poverty.
One of
the reasons for the poor outcomes of so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is
the impoverished conditions in which they live. Poverty reduction is a wellness
strategy.
The
costs of poverty and the inequality to individuals and society are increasingly
well documented. More equal societies do better. What we think we're saving in
income security, we pay for elsewhere in homeless shelters, food banks and a
host of social ills from health problems to crime. Talking about a Poverty
Reduction Strategy and basic income for people helps reduce these downstream
problems and their costs.
Again,
we'll support the motion but we believe the two go hand in hand. A poverty
reduction strategy has to be part of the solution.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
want to thank the previous Members who spoke on the motion.
This
past year has been uncertain and a difficult time for all of us. The global
pandemic has touched our communities, creating hardship for many and changing
many facets of how we live. Certainly, people with low income, our Indigenous
citizens and persons with disabilities, children living in single-parent
families, women and older adults are bearing the heaviest weight of these
events.
From
these challenges, however, we see opportunity: opportunity to learn, to change,
to do better. Our government has committed to develop a renewed strategy to
reduce poverty, as the previous speaker mentioned. This will be done in
consultation with stakeholders, experts, communities and persons with lived
experience.
Speaker,
poverty is a complex issue. Poverty is about income levels, but it's also about
a lack of resources, a lack of opportunities and a lack of power to achieve a
standard of living that allows full participation in life.
The
Clerk may want to check the clock.
SPEAKER:
The Member only has that
time. At 4:45 we will close debate.
J. ABBOTT:
Got it. Understood.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Okay, sorry about that.
So
structural factors create vulnerabilities to poverty. Gender, family
circumstance, barriers to inclusion such as attitudes about disability, racism
and other forms of discrimination are all relevant and they are relevant in our
society here in this province. This complex nature is why our government takes a
whole-of-government approach to reducing, alleviating and eliminating poverty.
We have many programs and services across departments that provide support to
individuals and families across their lifespans.
Speaker,
our government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in poverty reduction
measures. We have recently announced the $25-a-day child care and that will be
reduced down to $10 a day. This move towards affordable child care will help
families and our economy as a whole. We know that affordable quality child care
supports women, in particular, to avail of more opportunities in education and
the workforce. It also supports children, providing age-appropriate learning
opportunities, setting the foundation in childhood for educational success, a
key social determinant of health.
Speaker,
we are investing about $66 million annually in the Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement, which supports approximately 155,000 individuals and their
families every year. We are also investing over $56 million for the Newfoundland
and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, which supports approximately 48,000 seniors and
their families each year. We have the Low Income Tax Reduction, which is a
provincial personal income tax reduction for low-income individuals and families
where below a certain income level you pay no provincial income tax.
Speaker,
the concept of a sliding scale of benefits based on income and need is best
practiced in reducing, eliminating and alleviating poverty. This approach helps
people transition into higher income and greater self-sufficiency without the
loss of benefits and social supports they need.
Another
place we see this stepped approach is in our Prescription Drug Program where
people on income support receive 100 per cent prescription drug coverage.
Thereafter, they can move on to a drug plan which offers an affordable copay
based on income and family, if their income increases.
Speaker,
this year the income support program was transitioned to my Department of
Children, Seniors and Social Development. This realignment provides further
opportunities and synergies to strengthen supports and services for people with
low incomes with a focus on poverty reduction efforts throughout the province.
We are also now beginning a review of the income support program, which will
include the examination of the program structure, how people access income
support and benefits.
Speaker,
two of my first meetings with community partners, when I started in my new
ministerial position, were with representatives from the Coalition for a Just
Recovery NL and representatives from Basic Income NL. The Coalition for a Just
Recovery is a group of community agencies from across the province that has
submitted a proposal to the federal government for economic recovery. This
proposal includes 10 initiatives outlining an inclusive, empowering and just
recovery from the pandemic. One of their recommendations is to pilot a
widespread basic income program for individuals between 18 and 64.
Basic
Income NL is another coalition of community agencies that has produced a policy
paper and website called Basic Income NL, which proposes a model of basic income
for Newfoundland and Labrador. I have reviewed this report, including the design
options, cost modelling and revenue implications that were noted. Departmental
officials continue to meet with members of this coalition to explore their
proposal.
Speaker,
I want to assure this House that my officials and I are keeping up to date with
the discourse across the country on this issue, as well as research around the
world. All of these initiatives are of importance, given our focus on a renewed
Poverty Reduction Strategy. We know people are debating the merits and
challenges of a basic income approach. There have been successes and
complications in jurisdictions that have tried this around the world. We look at
Finland, we look at Ontario and we look elsewhere, and there continues to be –
and rightly so – a push across jurisdictions, including our own, to explore the
concept of a basic income and how can we get it right.
Three
senators from PEI and one from Ontario recently sent a letter to the prime
minister asking for a nation-wide guaranteed basic income, starting in PEI. In
February past, Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz introduced Bill C-273 in the House of
Commons towards a national guaranteed basic income, it entered second reading
and, obviously, it was terminated with the call of the general election. Most
recently the PEI Premier's Council for Recovery and Growth released a report
outlining a number of recommendations to best support the people of PEI and
Premier King has committed to implementing the recommendations in the report,
one of which is to examine livable income options, including wage increases,
increases to the basic personal amount and a form of basic income guarantee.
Not
everyone is on board with a stand-alone basic income approach as the one
solution to poverty. I'll point to an expert panel appointed by the BC
government recently which concluded that moving to a system with a basic income
for all as its main pillar may not be the most just policy option. They instead
believe that it would be more effective, in general, to address social issues
directly and that a combination of cash transfers and basic services reformed to
better align with a justice-based objective would be a better approach. We
understand that funding a basic income project in Newfoundland and Labrador
would mean examining current investments in social supports and this would need
to be done in partnership with the federal government.
We look
to the success of the Guaranteed Income Supplement in Canada, the Old Age
Security pension is slated to increase by 10 per cent for seniors over the age
of 75 beginning July of next year and we have the Canada child benefit which has
lifted nearly 435,000 children out of poverty across Canada. We have the
disability tax credit and, recently, in this past year, the federal government
introduced Bill C-35, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial
security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability
benefit, which would be a guaranteed basic income program for persons with
disabilities. So, just to let you know, there is a lot of action going on.
Speaker,
I would like to conclude my remarks by looking towards the future. Our
government has committed to a renewed poverty reduction strategy and leadership
for this work rests with me and my department. Our vision is that Newfoundland
and Labrador is a place where families and individuals have high levels of
well-being, are empowered to move out of poverty and have the appropriate skills
and support to fully participate in society. Our goal is to take the lessons of
the past year and a half and build on this work with guidance from the
community. We look forward to continued partnership with the community in
helping to support people who live on a low incomes.
Speaker
–
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your
time has expired.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
If the Leader of the Third
Party speaks now we'll close debate.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to take the first few minutes just read some real stories. Names are changed.
Crystal
is a 20-something-year-old single mother who works in a pharmacy for $13.50 an
hour. Now, this pharmacy will only give her 30 hours a week in order to avoid
offering her a medical plan and benefits. This mom must pay for daycare, food,
transportation, phone, rent on a one-bedroom apartment, as the child sleeps with
her, and she can't keep up with the cost of living and can't get ahead. She says
she may quit her job, but knows that income support isn't enough to live on
either. She'd like to upgrade her education, but cannot afford the programs or
to take time away from work. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will
pay in the end in this case, as at some point she is overwhelmed with her
situation and will need the mental health support, and the pharmacy will be out
of a hard-working employee.
Tim is
another constituent of mine. A part-time single father, he has been employed in
the oil and gas sector for over 12 years as an engineering technologist and was
employed with one of the major companies. He has run out of EI, is out of his
savings and has sold off as much as he can. Tim cannot compete in the workforce:
he has the professional experience, but has been out lapped by newer graduates.
He needs further certification, but he cannot afford his training. Tim cannot
pay his mortgage, or for his car, or insurance or the child support that his
ex-spouse relies on. He has no safety, nor a job.
Heather
has been living in an apartment building owned by one of the large REITs for the
past 18 years. Her rent has increased to $850 a month over time and she has
relied on her rent subsidy from NLHC. Heather has one adult child living with
her who suffers from an untreated mental health issue and is unemployed. She was
given a three-month notice of eviction without cause. The owner is reclaiming
the unit – knows that they can get more money for a two-bedroom apartment,
especially if they put in a few upgrades to the old unit. She has been looking
for a new place but a two-bedroom anywhere is over $1,000 a month. She has no
savings, is in debt and cannot even afford movers. She's on a wait-list
consisting of some 900 people for NLHC. And I can go on.
The
Member for Bonavista talked about (inaudible) of 60 per cent of the issues
outside of health care, and he comes from an education background and listening
to him I was thinking in many cases I think the hard part for educators,
everywhere, and we see the effects of poverty in the children in front of us.
It's real, it's why we get into fundraising because there are families there
that cannot afford the field trips sometimes or the extras, or sometimes
teachers, I will tell you, have bought coats. Why we get involved with breakfast
programs and so on and so forth. Because if that child comes that day it's to
get out of a situation where they have other issues related to poverty, related
to other mental health issues and related to family life. I do remember my first
years teaching some students would come in and they did nothing, but why they
were there, the school was warm. It was a warm place to be, that's why they're
in school.
I look
at it and, again, I go back to this because even in our own families – I think
my brother will certainly attest to this – I can't say we were wealthy, but I'll
tell you one thing: there was food on the table, dad worked hard, seven of us
were raised and we all had a university education. Each of us had those
benefits; that's a privilege in many ways. I look at my grandchildren and what
they will have, because whatever their parents cannot afford, I can guarantee
you, between the two sets of grandparents, they will want for nothing. But
they're entering school right now with all of that behind them and with those
levels of support.
So for
me, when I'm looking at this – and I agree; maybe this should be part of a
larger Poverty Reduction Program, but somewhere along the line it cannot be
piecemeal – it cannot be piecemeal.
I think
it's got to be a coordinated effort and maybe that's what I would look for here.
I've listened to the discussion and I envision that this Committee – and
hopefully we've got some runway with this – is going to carry on with this
discussion over the next few years and come up with some recommendations. I
agree it's complicated on one hand. On the other hand, it's not. So for me it's
very much about the children. As a teacher, former educator, it's very much
about the children in front of me.
I've
heard here the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port talk about full-time,
permanent employment with benefits – totally agree. The first example I read
from Crystal, that's exactly the issue here. If there are incentives to
employers to do that, then so be it. But you should be able to have full-time
employment and if your employment is such that you can get by, that's what it
should be.
I do
know that some of the recommendations that were brought up – if I have one here.
We talk about universal basic income – and by the way, I'm just putting out some
of the ideas that have come here. I'm hoping that this Committee will take a
deeper dive into this. Universal basic income is a non-taxable amount assigned
to all adults annually and it's in a similar manner to Old Age Security. It's
clawed back gradually after income passes a certain level, a given level.
A
negative income tax involves setting a minimum and individuals or families below
a given line of income are topped up to the maximum on a monthly basis and an
income above the minimum would become taxable. So it's reduced the maximum
amount, which is reduced as the income increases.
We have
a pilot project that was Manitoba's MINCOME in 1974 to '79. That's the model
we're sort of thinking of for Newfoundland and Labrador. It mirrors that of
Ontario, which all individuals and families are guaranteed a base rate of income
or slightly above the poverty line.
Now,
obviously, we're going to have to look at – and I think it was mentioned here –
what does a single individual require versus what does maybe a single mom or
single dad with children or a family. The important part for me is that we begin
this discussion. The Member for Bonavista said that 15 per cent, I think, of
health is related to your biology. And I would agree with him, with that.
But
here's the thing. I would say that those of us who have the income and the
health plans and everything else, if we've got health problems, our chances of
dealing with those health problems if you got money there, if you got a good
income, you're better able to handle them than a person who's living in poverty.
I've seen the effects, whether it has to do with teeth, whether it has to do
with the diet. It comes back to your ability to afford the standards of living
that would grant you the means necessary to live a decent life.
We talk
about the cost here and it was mentioned about the parliamentary budget officer.
It is interesting; the parliamentary budget officer certainly weighed in and
said that the cost of this program wouldn't be as much as some people think. I
would agree certainly with the Minister of Immigration as well that we need to
work on a definition. Again, this would be the role of any such Committee.
I will
say this, in addition to the people with a program like this who would be able
to participate in the economy, there's a public cost of poverty which we never
seem to weigh into this.
The
public cost of poverty in Canada was some $24.4 billion in 2007, with an
additional private cost to individuals of $48 billion according to the most
conservative estimate by the Ontario Association of Food Banks in 2007. The cost
of bringing everyone up to the poverty line after tax was about half that.
There's
also the savings that would occur to the health care system. I remind you of the
example here of raising the bottom 20 up the next quintile, it would result in
6.7 per cent savings to the health care system: $217 million.
When we
take a look at this, we need to weigh in not just the various supports that are
out but what are the costs. I guess do a cost-benefit analysis. But, for me, I
can tell you that as a teacher, when you're dealing with students who have all
of the necessities, they're already way ahead.
As one
group of teachers said to me, fundraising – and here's a clear example; I think
my colleague from Bonavista would agree. Depending on the school you're in,
depending on the financial situation of a parent, you can raise an awful lot of
money. But go to a school where the families are struggling, the ability to
raise money, to subsidize, to help build the school is not there, you can see a
very clear distinction, a very clear difference between those schools where
families are not income secure or food insecure and those families that don't.
This is about levelling the playing field.
Now,
Speaker, we have an amendment. To me, as long as there's a Committee here that's
going to look at this – I do like the idea if we're going to have an all-party
Committee that it be balanced. I would like to believe that regardless of
political stripe, it's about making sure we come up with the best approaches.
This is not an Opposition issue, this is not a government issue, it's not a
Liberal, it's not an NDP, it's not a PC, it's not an independent issue; it
belongs to all of us.
We may
go home tonight to our comfortable beds, to our heated rooms, to a decent meal,
but every man and woman and every child's health and well-being is our concern
here. Not just because we're a Member of this Legislature, but also because I
think we have a vested interest in making sure that all of our brothers and
sisters in this province and their children are looked after.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Just for
clarification we'll be voting on the subamendment first followed by the
amendment, then the main motion.
All
those in favour of the subamendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
SPEAKER:
The subamendment is defeated.
On
motion, subamendment defeated.
SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
amendment is approved.
On
motion, amendment carried.
SPEAKER:
Now we'll vote on the main
motion, as amended.
All
those in favour, of the main motion, as amended.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, in accordance with Standing Order 9(3), this House do stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.