Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 27 February 2018 (48th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 45)
2018-02-27
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
February 27, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 45
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I'd like
to welcome everyone to the sitting today. I apologize for the snowstorm. I
didn't have much to do with it but I'm glad to see everyone convene, and please
bear with us.
I would
like to introduce to all of the hon. Members, and to our folks in the gallery,
Ms. Alden Spencer. She is our newest Page.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I think I need to check the
records, but – and not the fact that she is from Marystown, but the fact that
she has also served as a Page in the House of Commons. So she comes with federal
experience.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Welcome, Ms. Spencer.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. districts of Conception Bay South, Bonavista, Mount
Pearl - Southlands, Mount Pearl North, and Labrador West.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, recently I had
the pleasure of attending the Duke of Edinburgh's International Award Ceremony
at the Capital Hotel.
One of
the most prestigious awards Canada offers to our young people is the Duke of
Edinburgh's International Award. Established in Canada in 1963, the tri-level
non-competitive program encourages youth to set and achieve goals in the areas
of community service, skills, fitness and adventure.
Today I
stand to recognize five young people from my district who received gold pins,
bronze and silver certificates from the Hon. Frank F. Fagan,
Lieutenant-Governor. Congratulations to: Anna Hutchings, bronze; Shawn Baker,
silver; Evan O'Reilly, silver; Kendra Bishop, silver; and Brooke Pottle, gold.
These
students are part of the COSTA – Challenge Our Students To Achieve program, an
initiative to support students with special needs. The Duke of Edinburgh's
International Award recognized that challenges vary from person to person and
that all youth should be rewarded for remarkable achievements.
Mr.
Speaker, these individuals have worked extremely hard in attaining these awards.
I ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating them on their
achievements.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, business is
booming on the Bonavista Peninsula. Over the past several years there have been
a number of new businesses start, and more on the way.
The
Newfoundlander Cider Company, located in Milton, is the latest to have a
successful launch. Holding their official launch this past Friday, owners Chris
Adams and Marc Poirier released their Forager and Old Tilt brands. These can be
found in St. John's and Clarenville NLC stores, and from what I've been told
they are in high demand. I certainly can't wait to try them.
Chris,
who is from Milton, and Marc harvest apples locally from abandoned and neglected
apple trees that were planted decades ago by early residents. Their
entrepreneurial spirit came from their love of cider and a hobby of crafting it
at home. They had a dream to do this on a large scale which resulted in
Newfoundland's first cidery.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Newfoundland Cider
Company on their launch and wish them well for the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it's my
privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which
was the 36th annual Frosty Festival in the City of Mount Pearl.
Once
again, this year's festival included various activities for citizens of all ages
and interests including: A Night of a
Thousand Stars featuring the Spirit of Newfoundland; a Pedestrian Parade of
Lights; two community breakfasts; an indoor and outdoor family fun day; a lip
sync contest; a concert and dance featuring the Fables, the Irish Descendants
and Rum Ragged; an Irish pub night; a seniors bingo; a jigs dinner and variety
show; Battle of the Brains trivia night; and a dinner theatre, just to name a
few.
Mr.
Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would
not be possible if it were not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of
community partners. I would therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join
me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of
Directors, the various community groups and organizations, the corporate
sponsors and all of the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great
success story which was Frosty Festival 2018.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And now for another
perspective on this great event: the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, you just stole my opening line.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate all that helped make
the 36th Annual Mount Pearl Frosty Festival a huge success. The Frosty Festival
has become the largest winter festival in Atlantic Canada. This year's festival
was spectacular with over 70 events throughout 12 days, attracting over 50, 000
participants from Mount Pearl and neighbouring districts.
The
people of Mount Pearl and surrounding areas donned their warmest winter gear and
came out to enjoy the many fun-filled events. On opening night, I dressed up as
Farmer Jim and had the honour of transporting Frosty himself in a fantastic
Parade of Lights, which lit up the entire parade route.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to all of those who contributed
to the success of the Frosty Festival: the board of directors, the committee
members, the community groups and sponsors, and hundreds of volunteers who
dedicated countless hours to making sure all of the events were successful.
I ask
all hon. hon. Members to join me, once again, in thanking and congratulating the
36th Annual Mount Pearl Frosty Festival on its tremendous success again this
year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
This is about the Frosty
Festival.
MR. LETTO:
Not about the Frosty
Festival.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding group of athletes in
Labrador West. On February 6, we gathered to honour and award approximately 78
athletes in over nine different categories. The top three categories are: Teen
Athlete of the Year, the Alfie Award and the Builders Award, along with Most
Spirited, Athletes Choice Coach Award and the Rising Star Award.
Matt
Ryan and Amanda Daniels took Male/Female Teen Athlete of the Year. Kyle Pawlett
and Tony Lawrence accepted the Alfie Award, which is an award that is presented
in honour of Alf Parsons for his dedication to sport and the community of
Labrador West.
The
Builders Award recognizes a volunteer's outstanding and long-term contribution
to an organization that is significant to the founding and growth of a
recreational organization. Rick Delaney and Brian Barnett undoubtedly deserve
this award for everything that they have contributed to their respective
organizations and community.
Lab West
has an abundance of very talented athletes and it is exciting to see them
rewarded for their achievements at the provincial, national and international
level.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in extending well-deserved congratulations to all
those athletes and their accomplishments.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to celebrate the ongoing success of our province's tourism
industry.
I was
pleased last week to attend the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador Conference
and Trade Show in St. John's where the Premier provided the results of our 2016
Exit Survey, the most detailed exit survey our province has ever produced.
Mr.
Speaker, tourism has become a pillar of our province's economy – growing to
support over 2,600 businesses and nearly 20,000 jobs in Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is why we continue to build, strengthen and foster our
connections with the Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism Board partners, including
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and Destination Management Organizations.
Working together, we are realizing our full potential of our tourism
opportunities that exist throughout our province.
In 2016,
non-resident visitors spent $562 million in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our own
residents made nearly 4 million trips within the province and spent more than
$560 million. As a result, total tourism spending was over $1.13 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Our estimates show that our
success with attracting non-resident visitors continued last year when we
achieved the highest level of non-resident visitation and tourism spending in
the history of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Last year, we welcomed over
553,000 visitors for the very first time – an increase of 3 per cent over 2016.
Non-resident visitor spending reached an estimated $575 million in 2017, an
increase of 2 per cent over the previous year. This is the highest non-resident
spending the province has ever seen. Compared to 2015, non-resident visitation
increased 8 per cent and spending increased 11 per cent in just two years. That
success highlights the incredible product that exists in our province and the
tremendous effort of our tourism operators.
Mr.
Speaker, our government remains committed to working together with industry to
reach $1.6 billion in visitor spending by 2020, and to make sure that
Newfoundland and Labrador remains the high-demand destination it has become.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. In our province today the tourism industry is, without a doubt, one
of the few bright spots we currently have under a Liberal regime. The news that
the tourism industry has steadily increased is no surprise to this side of the
House, Mr. Speaker. The reason why is because it was this –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
PERRY:
– side of the House that brought the
tourism industry to the heights that we see today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
I think it's important to
reiterate this fact, Mr. Speaker, because of the hard work that the PC
government did with respect to the tourism sector.
That
fact aside, Mr. Speaker, there is no individual and no government that can take
credit for the beautiful province in which we live. It gives me great pleasure
and pride –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– to know that the global
community continues to experience what we all know, that our Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is place unlike any other.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This statement really
is about the hard work, ingenuity and creativity of our people across
Newfoundland and Labrador, and the hardworking people in our tourism department.
Congratulations to the 20,000 or more who work in tourism and all the others
working in the arts and heritage sectors who contribute to our high quality
tourist attractions. Many of these people work very hard to stretch their
limited resources every year, often not knowing if they will receive
government's contribution until the tourism season is well underway.
Long-term, substantial investment is needed every year to enable this sector to
achieve its potential and help our economy diversify. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this
is, again, a case for the need for multi-year funding for groups in the tourism
industry.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statement by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
really nice to hear the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune acknowledge the
good work happening by the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
I rise in this hon. House to
recognize two outstanding Olympians from this province: Kaetlyn Osmond and Liam
Hickey.
January 2018, Ms. Osmond, as the reigning Canadian champion, was named to Team
Canada in figure skating for the 2018 Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang, and
won not one, but two Olympic medals – a gold in the team event and a bronze in
women's singles.
Kaetlyn
scored a season best in her long program for a combined score of 231.02.
Kaetlyn's bronze medal marks the first time a Canadian has won an Olympic medal
in women's singles since 2010. Her medal also gave Canada its 27th medal at the
Games, surpassing our country's previous all-time high at the Winter Games.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month, Mr. Hickey was named to the Canadian sledge hockey
team and will compete in Pyeongchang in the coming weeks at the 2018 Winter
Paralympic Games. Even more remarkable is the fact that he is a multi-sport
athlete having competed for Team Canada in wheelchair basketball at the 2016
Summer Paralympic Games in Rio, Brazil.
Over the past week or so, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the
rest in our province and country, was so excited to watch Kaetlyn represent, not
just her hometown and not just her province, but her country on the world stage
and I am just as excited to watch Liam and his team in the coming weeks as they
work to bring home another gold medal for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all Members of this hon. House to
congratulate Kaetlyn on her incredible achievement and join me in wishing Liam
nothing but success in his strive for excellence.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. This side of the House will
absolutely stand up and recognize the great effort and accomplishments put forth
by our Newfoundland and Labrador athletes.
Ms.
Kaetlyn Osmond in figure skating and Mr. Liam Hickey in sledge hockey are the
pride of the province right now. We are elated to join with all Members of this
hon. House to recognize and celebrate their accomplishments. These young people
are an example to us all for what we can achieve with hard work and dedication.
I wish
them well and look forward to celebrating with them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I'm delighted to
join with her in celebrating these two athletes on their outstanding achievement
as Olympians and community leaders.
I've
been following Kaetlyn Osmond's sporting career since I saw her win her first
bronze medal at the Canadian seniors in 2012. I'm one of her biggest fans, Mr.
Speaker. I can't be any happier today than I am.
I wish
Liam Hickey all the best. I hope that he too will be as brilliant and as happy
as Kaetlyn was when she won the other night.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first
question today is to the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing.
I ask
the minister, if she can confirm a recent report by news outlet
allNewfoundlandLabrador that stated
that a company owned by the Premier is getting a $400,000 forgivable loan to
develop a housing project in the Premier's district?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'll be happy to respond to this question.
First
and foremost, this was a decision that was made by the prior administration. It
was the premier of the day, I think the Member who just asked the question. So
this is about a PC decision that was made.
First of
all, I want to say that all money awarded goes actually to the tenants, the
tenants that would live in those affordable housing units. I would also say, Mr.
Speaker, the person in question would have been a company that I was part of. I
disclosed my interests within that company.
I also
want to reiterate that on the application process, the shareholder of that
company was fully disclosed to Newfoundland and Labrador and all those that were
reviewing this merit-based application. It is also my understanding that the CEO
did the analysis, as well as his minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'll ask the Premier, because he seems to be willing to talk about this today,
if he can confirm that it was him who actually applied for this $400,000
forgivable grant from government while he was an MHA in 2014. Was it actually
the Premier who applied for that grant?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On the
disclosure statement that was made to the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards, this was fully disclosed. On the application, it was fully disclosed
who the shareholder was at the time, Mr. Speaker. This was all part of the
analysis on which was a merit-based process.
Added to
that, this was all happening in the transition from coming into Premier of the
province. As a matter of fact, I suspended at the time all progress on this
application and sought a conflict of interest opinion from the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, Mr. Speaker.
They had
met with the CEO of NLHC and, of course, his minister would have been involved
in making sure this application got to this point. The money that was awarded is
into the hands of the tenants, based on all the criteria set out by Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I understood the
contract was actually with the company, Jade Holdings, to which the Premier is
the owner of Jade Holdings.
Now, I
asked the Premier if he was actually the one who applied for the funding in
2014. He didn't answer that. And the funding does not go to the tenants, the
funding goes to the developer. The Premier's company is the developer.
Premier:
Can you tell us and confirm for us that the funding was actually finalized while
you were Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
reason why the funding was finalized later on was this reason that I just
mentioned. There was no money transferred at all. The company deliberately did
not do that. It was suspended. The process was suspended until the blind trust
had been put in place. There was no conflict of interest.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards supported that. The application and the
analysis was done by the NLHC, Mr. Speaker. It was approved when the Member was
a former premier of this province. And indeed, I will tell you that the money
meets the criteria. It's a loan and it goes into the pockets of the tenants in
subsidization of rent for those that live in that affordable housing unit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, to be clear,
it's a forgivable loan. The way the forgivable loan works is the Premier's
company receives $400,000 from the government that he leads, while he was
Premier, so he could develop 10 units, and the affordability is given to the
tenant because they receive a lower rate of rent, but it goes in the developer's
pocket. It's a benefit for the developer, the Premier is the owner of the
company and he actually applied for the grant.
Premier,
is this in contravention of the contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
decision was made and announced by the former premier. It was announced by his
minister. The former premier actually announced this, along with a number of
other successful companies. It was a merit-based application. The benefit goes
to the tenants, Mr. Speaker.
The
forgivable loan, if indeed the applicants, as would with any company under
affordable housing project, if you meet the criteria, the rent is actually put
in place by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. The only beneficiary of this are
indeed the tenants who get rate subsidies, like they should.
It's a
project meant for people, low-income earners, people with disabilities and
vulnerable people in our society to receive a rent subsidy, Mr. Speaker. The
criteria is put in place by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier wants the people to believe that the tenants were the sole beneficiary
when, in fact, it's his company that benefits from receiving $400,000. When the
10-year expiration comes, so for a 10-year period they have to apply a certain
rate, when the 10 years expires, the beneficiary of what was constructed and
built is the owner of the company – simply the owner of the company. He, as a
Member of the House of Assembly, made application for this grant, for this
process. And while he was Premier, the contract was finalized.
Isn't
that correct, Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No,
indeed it is not correct. It's not correct. Because this money doesn't support
construction costs or development costs. What this money goes to support is
rents. Mr. Speaker, if you compared the rents in the area, the rates are set by
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it is actually the tenants – speak to the
tenants themselves. When they look at and you do the comparisons of rent in any
area, those that live in affordable housing units will actually get a decreased
rent.
Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear, the clear beneficiaries of this would be the tenants
that get rent subsidies, those that live in affordable housing units. The
announcement was made by his government on a merit-based application process by
his minister, and I will table this if need be, made on July 1, 2015. I believe
he was premier of the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As this
goes on, we will hear more about how Newfoundland and Labrador Housing raised
this as an issue with him and, as he just said, he waited until it was in a
blind trust before the money actually flowed. He said that just a few minutes
ago in his own answer. He waited until it was in a blind trust before the money
flowed.
It was
the Premier's company. That $400,000 went into the Premier's pocket, Mr.
Speaker, to offset and reduce construction costs so he could reduce the rental
rates for 10 years. After that, it's all his, Mr. Speaker, the full blow;
$400,000 becomes his and his only as the owner of the company. This is in
contravention to what the rules say.
I ask
the Premier: Do you agree? It's wrong. It should never have happened in the
first place.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm very happy to speak to this. Number one, it was his minister at the time
that actually did the analysis on this. There were meetings with the CEO. The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards clearly understands this.
The
difference here would be, let's say the $400,000 did not come, what would happen
is those tenants would end up paying essentially $300 to $400 a month more to
live in those units. That's essentially what you'd do for this construction. So
the clear beneficiary of all of this is those that received the lower rents. As
a matter of fact, the criteria is put in place what that rent should be, what
the wages should be of those tenants, Mr. Speaker.
This
criteria is clearly put in place by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and he was
fully aware of this when he was premier of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Premier says things that
he doesn't know to be factually correct, Mr. Speaker. That's what is happening
here today. But what is factually correct is that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I can understand why Members
opposite are upset about having to hear this today.
What the
report by allNewfoundlandandLabrador
indicated was that the 2016 contract between the Premier and the company that he
owns, Jade Holdings, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing had a stipulation,
and according to the report it says: That no provincial MHA shall be admitted to
any share or part of any contract agreement or commission made pursuant to this
agreement, or to any benefit arising from it.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Premier receives a benefit because he's going to own this
forever, if he so desires. Is that not a benefit, Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, if the criteria are not met, this is a loan that would not be
forgivable. So if the criteria wasn't met to put in place the subsidized rents
for those tenants over that 10-year period, well, it's not a forgivable loan and
you pay that loan back at a rate of the loan, plus 6.25 per cent.
Clearly,
I want to say this, if I was looking for a benefit, why would I have voted
against their budget in 2015?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I don't know, Mr. Speaker.
We're grasping now.
Mr.
Speaker, according to what the Premier has said here today, and what's been
reported by allNewfoundlandLabrador , I
think the facts are very, very clear. The Premier, an elected Member of this
House of Assembly, applied for a forgivable loan when the contract says it
cannot be –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
They don't like it, Mr.
Speaker. They don't like it.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier, who is an elected Member of the House, applied for a
grant. The grant, the money flowing and the finalization of the contract
occurred while he was sitting as the Premier. He was sitting as the Premier of
this province. It's a forgivable loan that he will clearly benefit from.
I ask
this House, I ask the Premier: Will you co-operate and agree to an immediate
call of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to launch a full
investigation in this matter, and I ask the Premier if he'll agree and
co-operate with such an investigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, all MHAs, when
they are elected, disclose their private interests to the Commissioner of
Legislative Standards. The Opposition would know that. We do that every year.
We're doing it again on April 1.
Mr.
Speaker, what the Member is asking about today is affordable housing, an
application made back in 2014 when they were in government. Mr. Speaker, at the
time Jade Holdings – the Member at the time proactively disclosed his
involvement with Jade Holdings.
Mr.
Speaker, it was their PC appointed representative, the CEO of Housing, John
Ottenheimer at the time, that signed off on this. It went through a very
rigorous process. All of the checks and balances were in place, and it was their
government that approved it and announced it in July '15.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
Order,
please!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, in a public
meeting held this past week in Port Blandford to discuss the proposed resource
harvest via clear-cutting, the Liberal MHA for Terra Nova was quick to throw the
former Minister of Forestry under the bus, saying that he had no idea that
decisions in the department's five-year plan affected his district.
Does the
minister accept responsibility for this oversight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, forestry
management plans are reviewed on a five-year basis. They come up on every
forestry management area. They're available not only online, but they're
presented publicly. And, as well, the town council of Port Blandford, I
understand, was presented with the information itself.
The town
council of Port Blandford reviewed the forestry management plan and did actually
recommend some modifications, some amendments, which were accepted. The plan
then went to an environmental assessment process, and there were further
modifications done at that time.
So, Mr.
Speaker, yes, I would accept that we can always improve. I'm delighted that not
only myself, but the MHA for the area will be meeting with the town council and
members of the Town of Port Blandford to continue on developing a very
sustainable forestry management plan for the area.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, to make matters
even more interesting, the Terra Nova MHA was, at that time, through the
development of a five-year plan, the parliamentary secretary to the very
department he claims kept information from him.
Does the
Premier believe it's reasonable that a parliamentary secretary can be so
disengaged?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'll
just stand and speak on this about engagement. Any Member that's elected in this
House of Assembly should stand up for the people that put them in. This Member
here went down to a public meeting and said: I wasn't aware of it. Since then,
he has spoken to three or four ministers that were involved. He is getting to
the bottom of this for the people that elected him.
For you
to stand up here and try to say the Member for Terra Nova is not doing his job,
I'll ask you one question: What do you think of the Leader of the Opposition in
the comments that you made? Why don't you stand up and be responsible for the
comments that you made? Why don't you stand up? If you want to do it, if you
want to disclose everything, here's your opportunity. If you want to throw the
Member for Terra Nova under the bus when he's standing up –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
– you stand up and be a man
and say what you said about the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, to remain on
topic, which is what the people of this province want us in this Legislature to
do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
When the original decision
was made pertaining to the clear-cutting near Port Blandford, when would the MHA
for the area have been aware of those details?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
I didn't think he would want
to stand up and say what he said about the Leader of the Opposition. I didn't
think that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, the MHA found
out about it when the town and when the group – about a week, 10 days ago is
when he found out about it. Whatever happened, and I say to the – the minister
mentioned there are better ways for us to communicate to MHAs. There are better
ways for all of us to communicate, and that's what we're doing.
I can
tell you one thing. The Member for Terra Nova walked down and he stood up to the
meeting and said: I'll work with the people to see what we can do with this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
He had the courage to go down
and face it. He's working for the people in Terra Nova which he has always done,
which he always will do. I have to applaud him for that, Mr. Speaker.
So stand
up if you want to talk about what we say about throwing people under the bus.
Tell us what you think of your leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, in the public
meeting the MHA promised to make changes to clear-cutting allocations.
I ask
the minister: Will the department be making changes to the five-year plan as was
promised by the MHA?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased that the MHA for Terra Nova and myself will be meeting with
representatives from the town in the coming week.
We are
very open to amendments. In fact, as I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, there have
already been amendments to the forestry management plan for the area that were
proposed by the Town of Port Blandford. They were accepted and adopted and they
were included in the current submission.
Does
that mean it can stop there? Absolutely not, we have to balance. This is a
working forest. We're sustaining industry, we're sustaining jobs but we also
recognize we're sustaining tourism industry jobs as well. That balance is very
important.
If the
Member opposite wants to stand up and say there should be no forestry activity
whatsoever in that zone, I'd be happy to hear that from the Member but I would
not accept it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, if this plan is rejigged and the annual allowable cut is reduced,
have any considerations been given to the impact on the province's harvesters
and forestry operators?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the parliamentary
secretary for the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, it is very true
that I was at the public meeting that happened in Port Blandford last Tuesday
night, so were officials from Forestry.
It is
correct that I found out about this issue about 10 days ago. I always stand on
behalf of the constituents of my district. I found out about what's going on.
Information and accurate information is always important. I will work with the
minister and this government to make change that benefits everybody, including
the people of Port Blandford.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, further to possible immediate implications to industry, will this
set precedent if our five-year plan is varied on future pressures from outside
interests on industry and resource sustainable development?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Member would like to get his story straight it would be really appreciated on
this side of the House, because one minute he's saying that it's ridiculous that
the plan is not changing, now he's saying what are the consequences of the plan
changing.
I just
stated for the record a minute ago, not only have there been changes to this
plan that have already been adopted for this particular planning cycle as a
result of input from the Town of Port Blandford, but we're also prepared to
accept any additional amendments, recognizing the balance that this is a working
forest which sustains good-paying, middle-class jobs for people in the area
while at the same time recognizing there is a very viable, sustainable tourism
industry. That's what amendments are all about: seeking compromise for the best
interests of the economy and the people of Port Blandford.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, could the Minister of Natural Resources define what a fundamental
decision is according to the C-NLOPB and the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
and her involvement with any regarding Husky and the near miss with the iceberg
in March of 2017?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
fundamental decision is a decision that comes from C-NLOPB, so the board of
directors would make a decision and it requires the sign off of both the
province and the federal government as joint managers of our offshore. A
fundamental decision would be, for example, if you're going to have a new well
available, so decisions that require joint management from both governments.
Mr.
Speaker, the incident that the Member is referring to for Husky is a very
serious one. C-NLOPB are the experts. The chief safety officer is responsible
for that. So no fundamental decision has come forward, but there have been
discussions.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB in
our research indicates that non-compliance in relation to safety can result in a
fundamental decision. According to
section 30 of the federal
Atlantic Accord Act , when a fundamental decision is made, both the
federal minister and the provincial minister shall be given written notice.
Minister, when were you given written notice about suspending Husky's operation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I will
note it says “can result.” Mr. Speaker, we have been in discussions with
C-NLOPB. Obviously, we knew and understood the severity of this incident. We
allowed the experts of C-NLOPB under the requirements of the chief safety
officer to do their work. That's very important, Mr. Speaker; they are experts.
I'm sure the Member opposite would not want political interference in such
serious matters.
The day
that the requirement for Husky to stop operations was made we were informed –
actually, it was the day before we were informed. We are continuing, as the
investigation is continuing, to discuss things with the C-NLOPB.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister is correct, it can result; but recognizing the scope and the
seriousness of this incident, I think it would certainly call into question that
provision of the legislation.
According to the act again, the minister shall advise in writing the board and
each other, whether that minister approves or disapproves of that decision.
Minister: Can you tell us, did you give your approval to the decision to suspend
Husky's operations for nine days?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, if he had
reviewed, kindly, the entire act, it does allow for C-NLOPB to make reference to
very important matters around safety. It does allow C-NLOPB that scope of work.
It ensures that the chief safety officer, of course, is the person who leads
these investigations, is an independent officer. I'm sure he does not want
political interference on such serious matters.
Mr.
Speaker, so there has been no fundamental decision come forward. We were advised
that this was going to be the penalty that C-NLOPB was to impact at that
particular time. Following the preliminary assessment of their investigation, I
will remind the Member opposite the investigation continues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under
the Atlantic Accord provisions of joint partnership and joint jurisdiction, both
the federal government and the province have a role in oversight, and if the
concerns with that oversight were what the C-NLOPB is doing, it's the certainly
the obligation of the minister here in the province and the officials in her
department to certainly pursue that if they don't think what's being done is
being done.
The
SeaRose was issued a suspension of nine days, 10 months after what could have
been a catastrophic incident. No penalty has been given to the operator at this
point in time.
Based on
the failure and what's been identified in the ice management plan and obviously
the risk that employees were put in, I ask the minister: Have you lobbied for,
or what's your position on a financial penalty?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, it would be
inappropriate for me to lobby for anything at this point. C-NLOPB is tasked with
the responsibility for safety in our offshore. Immediately, as soon as the
incident occurred, they did bring a Husky executive into a meeting, they did
ensure the order for compliance was made, and then they started an
investigation.
That
investigation led to a preliminary result in January of a suspension of
operations – a very serious matter for Husky. In fact, it resulted in a change
in personnel here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It resulted in the attention of
the senior executives of Husky nationally.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland for a very quick question, please, no
preamble.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Environment: There were 360,000 barrels of oil on that vessel.
The vessel was built for a 100,000 metric-ton iceberg. The iceberg that was
identified was –
MR. SPEAKER:
No
preamble, please.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
– 100,000 metric tons in a million. What environment and practice would have
been in place if something had happened? Were you involved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a quick response, please.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, because the ice
management plan was already being enacted, some of the operations on the vessel
were already in wind-down mode. That is what I understand.
Therefore, there was no environmental, as I understand it, serious risk at that
point. What was at risk was safety. That was the most paramount issue for
C-NLOPB and that is why they have acted accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic
Accord 2005 review will address, among other things, the extent to which this
province has realized, and I quote, “lasting fiscal and economic gains from its
offshore petroleum resources revenues.”
I ask
the Premier: What is he going to be able to use to prove that there's even a
plan for achieving economic stability because of the offshore development?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As most
people in this province would be aware of right now – and I'm sure Members in
this House of Assembly – I did write the prime minister back on February 13
asking for a meeting to put in place the measures and what it would look like
when we did the review of the 2004 agreement of the Atlantic Accord.
The
Member is right that some of that is about equalization, about the fiscal
imbalances that you would actually see in Newfoundland and Labrador relative to
other provinces. All of this will inform what this review looks like. We have
until 2019 to have this review completed.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, under the current formula, Newfoundland and Labrador would
not receive equalization payments. I will tell you, from when I go around this
province comparing ourselves, this is really not what reflects the definition of
a have province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic
upon passage of the implementing legislation to allow the province to reduce its
outstanding debt of $11.5 billion in 2005. Government's projected debt for March
2018 is $14.7 billion.
I ask
the Premier: Is he expecting another handout of billions of dollars without
demonstrating how he plans on gaining fiscal stability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first and foremost it's always nice to be able to have the discussion with our
federal colleagues. Back in 2005, as the Member mentioned, what happened with
the nearly $2 billion and the cheque, kind of, we-got-it type scenario was this:
It actually meant that the expiry date of the Atlantic Accord would have been
2017. To get that $2 billion, what it essentially did was move the expiry date
back to 2012.
To put
this in terms, it's essentially kind of a cash advance. We all know what that $2
billion went to reducing debt, and given the financial situation that many
countries and many places in the world experienced during that timeline, the
value of that $2 billion essentially – a paper transaction was essentially lost.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, government
promised local businesses would be the major retailers for cannabis. They issued
an RFP and still haven't told perspective retailers what the selling price will
be, only that they will earn 8 per cent commission. No viable business can work
like this. This is utter chaos, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: What will the NLC be paying Canopy Growth for a gram of cannabis?
What is NLC establishing as the retail price, and when were they planning to
tell perspective retailers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Newfoundland and Labrador has taken an approach where we're going to a private
RFP model through the NLC to retail cannabis based on the federal government's
decision to legalize recreational cannabis later this year.
What was
announced just on February 20, that there's an RFP for 41 stores, there are
different tiers, and based on that, the primary objective would be to have a
remittance of 8 per cent which is very similar to what the NLC would have as a
commission rate on alcohol sale and for brewers, agents, liquor express here.
We have
to recognize on the outset that there is a significant cost to government when
it comes to setting up and establishing from a public safety point of view –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed
licensing rules with restrictions on location and a small commission of 8 per
cent make it impossible for retailers to cover costs including overhead,
insurance, extra security, trained staffing, let alone make a profit. The only
viable cannabis business will be the large multinational invited in by this
government to produce and sell cannabis. I tell the minister, this is not the
same as selling a bottle of rum; this is a gram of marijuana.
I ask
the minister: Will he cancel the RFP and work with small businesses to come up
with a retail model that will allow them to be viable?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a great deal of confidence in the executive and the board at the
NLC. They've been in the business of selling controlled substances for decades.
This is new territory we're getting into; it's a brand new product we're getting
into. We will evaluate how this goes over the next year.
The
percentage point that is paid to cannabis, Mr. Speaker, is the exact same as
what's paid to alcohol sales, and we do have private industry selling alcohol in
this province and making a profit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
here to table for the House, a copy of a media release dated July 31, 2015, from
the former PC administration with quotes from the hon. Clyde Jackman and Mr.
John Ottenheimer, former Chair and CEO, approving 60 projects for the affordable
home project.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Legal Aid Act, Bill 34.
Further,
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Public Inquiries Act, 2006, Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
School-aged children are walking to school in areas where there are no
sidewalks, no traffic lights, and through areas without crosswalks and where
they put the safety of these children at risk.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children, removing the 1.6
kilometre busing policy where safety is an ongoing concern.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a huge concern. I've presented this petition several times now in
the House of Assembly and I continue to present it because it's a huge issue in
my area. I understand that probably you can't change the whole 1.6 kilometre
busing zone, but where there are areas where there is high traffic volume it's
huge.
Like on
Torbay Road, for example, where the new Juniper Ridge School is located, some
16,000 cars a day travel along that route. There are no sidewalks there, Mr.
Speaker. There are no traffic lights there.
The Town
of Torbay, with permission from the Department of Transportation, which I thank,
were allowed to put in some crosswalks there. During the day, and this time of
year when plowing is done – and we're very fortunate that there hasn't been a
rough winter, because when it's a rough winter there are absolutely no
sidewalks. Children have to walk along the shoulder of the road which is very
narrow, and that shoulder of the road could be anywhere between a foot to 16
inches. So you're talking young children in grades four, five, six and seven who
are walking along the shoulder of the road with traffic; 16,000 or 17,000 cars a
day travelling on that.
I'm just
asking the minister and asking the department, I'm asking the government to
consider the safety of our children, to consider these children who have to walk
along in a high traffic area where there are no sidewalks, where there is no
street lighting to indicate for traffic to slow down.
Again, I
thank the Town of Torbay for the good job they did. They went and got permission
from the Department of Transportation and Works to be able to put crosswalks in
the area.
This is
a very serious issue. I'm going to continue to present this petition because the
safety of our children should be foremost for everybody in this House of
Assembly.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
policing is vital to the protection and service of our province's communities;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase the presence of law enforcement in
the Conception Bay South area.
And as
in duty, your petitioners will ever pray.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, this is a
petition I've presented many times since I've been elected, actually. I've
spoken to the minister on this and we've had good conversations. I've also
spoken to the RNC on numerous occasions. It's a work in progress, but it's
something that I don't want to fall off the – importance to me as the MHA for
the area and the people that I represent.
Policing
and police presence in my community, being the second largest municipality in
the province, right now people have spoken to me and I've spoken public on it.
We don't feel, as a community, we have the proper police presence for the size
of our community. The stats show, based on the level of crime, the types of
crime, the dynamics, the geography of our district. It's a linear district. It's
26 kilometres from one end to the other. It's all linear with 400 kilometres of
by-roads which are the town's responsibility.
Getting
to and from one area to the other, for instance, from Topsail to get to Seal
Cove, it's quite a distance. It's quite time consuming. So much so, I've heard
anecdotal stories of people who are in the criminal world know where the police
are located in CBS because it's not an interconnected grid of roads getting
through. They know if the cars are in Topsail, you have time to commit your
crime and do your business in Seal Cove.
Now,
those sources are really good. I take it for what it's worth, but it makes
sense. I've heard these stories many times. Actually, the RNC have never – I
spoke to them about it and they actually agreed as well.
So it's
an issue that I want to keep on the burner. I want to keep it going. Like I
said, I have spoken with the minister and I am in constant contact with the RNC
because everyone agrees this is a big issue, as well as the town. It's something
that I want to keep on the burner. I believe we do – our population, our stats,
our geography, everything demands more police presence. It's something that I'll
continue on. I'd like to see an office of some sort and increased police
presence in my district, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada, and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS
women and youth, and service sector employees, are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food
items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage
as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the folks who are signing these petitions, many of them are small
business owners, many of them are people who earn minimum wage, many of them are
parents of young people who earn minimum wage, many of them are minimum wage
earners themselves who are not youth, who are working in the service industry,
who are working in the tourism industry.
It was
interesting to hear the minister talk about the tourism industry and the great
gains that have been made. Yes, that's true, but a majority of the jobs in the
tourism industry are minimum wage jobs. Tourism operators in different parts of
the province, who I've spoken to, have talked about how hard it is to get
workers during the tourist season, and mainly because their wages are so low
they can't afford housing. So it might seem contrary to common sense to talk
about raising minimum wage at this time when we know the province is hit by a
really hard economic situation, but when is a good time, Mr. Speaker?
We know
that economists the world over, that policy-makers the world over, that private
industry, even large business owners the world over know that fair minimum wage
is good for the economy. It is good for our communities. It is good for our
society.
This act
is not a frivolous, uninformed request; it's actually based on sound economic
principles. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue to stand –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– and raise an issue to speak to this petition because it makes sense, even at
this time.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise today and present a petition on behalf of
residents in my district, particularly related to the Witless Bay Line, Route
13. It's a well-travelled highway and a significant piece of infrastructure as
the connection from the Trans-Canada Highway to Route 10 and plays a major role
in the commercial and residential activity of our region.
Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to perform brush
cutting on the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, immediately for driver safety and
provide clear visibility for the driving public in recognition of the high
volume of vehicles travelling this on a daily basis.
Mr.
Speaker, I've certainly spoken to this before here in the Legislature in regard
to upgrades to that piece of highway. We've done significant upgrades over the
past couple of years but more are required now. There's some immediate
maintenance required.
As well,
a large component of that is some brush cutting that hasn't been done in quite a
while. That goes to the safety and visibility of travellers on that piece of
highway which is quite busy. As I said, it connects the TCH to Route 10 and the
whole Southern Avalon. We have people that work on both sides in communities and
in the regions which travel daily, obviously, from commerce back and forth, and
residents and all of those that travel that highway.
I have
spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Works. Even up to the point of
yesterday, I had a discussion with him on it. They are looking at doing some
immediate work in regard to asphalt and, as well, the brush cutting. He even
informed me – and I certainly appreciate that – that he drove the highway on the
weekend past and does recognize some of the challenges we have in regard to that
piece of highway.
This
petition is signed by residents and people that use it. It calls on the minister
and government to do some work. As I said, I've had discussions with him and
looking forward to some progress to be made in the very near future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
call Order 2, third reading of Bill 30.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The Workplace
Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation
Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 29.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
The
motion is carried.
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 29,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 29)
CLERK:
Clause 1
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a
question on this bill; clause where we are allowing practitioners to issue
certificates under the act. I ask the minister, is that something that was ran
by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association? Because it jumps out to me
as they're doing the work of a medical doctor. Has that been vetted between the
NLMA with actually doing this work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
It's a
pleasure to rise and support my colleague here. The issue about nurse
practitioners and certificates is in actual fact to align ourselves more fully,
both with current practice in other areas and also with federal code. Nurse
practitioners are now authorized or free to sign off CRA certificates, for
example, for applications for pension and these kinds of things.
This
ability to sign off on certificates here is something that is entirely
consistent with now the Canada Labour Code
and also our own practice. Our last remaining hold out, in actual fact, in some
areas is some private insurance companies. The bulk of them have actually moved
towards doing this. I'm hoping that when we get this enshrined in the act, in
the amendments, that will be the final trigger to deal with that.
The
issue of nurse practitioners, particularly, is one that is very acute for rural.
The NLMA have always made it their position that anything that we can do as a
government to reduce red tape and paperwork is to their members' advantage, and
I don't think this would cause any difficulties with them at all.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
clarify what the minister indicated. This would be CPP disability, I guess, and
I know EI, Employment Insurance sick benefits, there's a 16-week period there by
application. So would this also apply in regard to the medical practitioner now
being able – consistent, I think, in other jurisdictions and with the federal
method of doing it that the practitioner can now issue the medical documentation
required for the application in that case.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I, too,
just want clarity with the Minister of Health as well. The nurse practitioner, I
understand the concept of the certificate but some of these cases it requires
more medical, I suppose, involvement, the more detail, the more evasive. How
much leeway does a medical practitioner have when giving these certificates?
Does it require certain testing, certain checkups, what have you, in the medical
field? How much leeway do they have in being able to issue certificates for the
various things, whether it be CPP, EI or what have you?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Actually, this issue relates to a subject close to my heart, which is scopes of
practice. There is a diagnostic skill set for which nurse practitioners are
trained. There is a larger diagnostic skill set for which family doctors are
trained. Then there is a different diagnostic skill set for which specialists
are trained.
It is
not uncommon for a primary care specialist to send a request for something, such
as a long-term disability certificate, to a specialist as they feel the
information required on that certificate, particularly with some of the wordings
– for example, with CRA about it being life altering and a significant burden on
their daily activities. It may not easily fall within the scope of a family
practitioner and would be better answered by a specialist.
Similarly, you may encounter situations where a nurse practitioner, because of
their scopes of practice and experience, may prefer either a family doctor or a
surgical or medical specialist to fill in that documentation. That's entirely a
matter of judgment and would be left to the discretion of the practitioners
involved.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Labour
Standards Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, title carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Chair, I move that
the Committee rise and report Bill 29.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 29.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Chair of the
Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 29 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 29 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 29.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 29,
An Act
To Amend The Labour Standards Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Labour Standards Act. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy
to stand here today and speak to Motion 4, which is a resolution that was read
into this House yesterday afternoon which concerns Standing Orders. Today, I
would move that this resolution be seconded by the Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development – there it is, all acronyms.
Again, I
shouldn't take too long to speak to this today. Just for people who may be
listening or watching, Standing Orders are essentially the rules that govern
this House and the Members of this House in procedure, how we operate. They've
been around some time. In many cases, they can change but the Orders that
operate this House can, in some cases, be quite dated and, in many cases, they
need to be changed over time to handle changes in technology, changes in
protocol, any number of things.
What I'm
very happy to say is that since 2015, I've served as the Chair of the Standing
Orders Committee, and colleagues from the other side of the House, we've met on
a number occasions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you've sat in on some of these
meetings, as well as Table staff and others, to talk about changing the Standing
Orders.
It's
interesting, because in the time leading up to 2015, I'm not sure, I certainly
don't know if I'd seen any meetings of the Standing Orders Committee. It's not
something we had seen much change in, but I'd like to think we've seen
significant change in the past couple of years on a whole number of things.
We've
gone at this from the approach of, instead of trying to look at everything and
change everything in one swoop; we've looked at trying to change things
piecemeal. In that way, we've made significantly more progress in just two years
than probably there was made in the 10 years prior to that.
Now, I
will say that many of the changes might not be things that are noticed by those
who do not sit in this House, but I think in many cases they're noticed by
people in the House, staff, people who work within government. Little things,
like putting in a fixed
schedule for the House of Assembly whereby in the past
there was no – there was an idea of when the House would sit but now we go on a
fixed calendar, which has been quite useful to everybody. It's been quite
helpful to families and making a more family-friendly Legislature.
We've
put constituency weeks in, which I think are positive for everybody. Generally,
in the past, the spring sitting has been something in this House where Members
can be gone from their districts for quite some time. So by doing this, we do
not shorten the sitting of the House. We do not lessen the amount of work. What
we do is allow for breaks during this
schedule for Members to go back to their
district. As everybody knows, we have quite a vast geography to cover. It's a
to talk about issues. It's a chance to do that, and it's worked quite well.
Again, similar to what we see in our House of Commons.
Again, I
can say, we just recently had other meetings talking about things like
legislative committees, which I'd like to think we're working on a process that
could see legislative committees reintroduced into this House of Assembly, which
I think is also positive.
Today,
what we're doing is two-fold. One I think is a more substantive change, and one
is more of a housekeeping change where we're amending Standing Order 24, which
is just more of an oversight from the past where we're adding the term:
government orders in the section. Again, like we do with legislation in many
cases, you get a chance to review, to correct errors, omissions, anomalies. In
this case, it's just a, I think, standard housekeeping issue.
We're
changing Standing Order 25, which deals with Members' statements. This is
something we've dealt with in the past where we talked about the number of
Members' statements made in this House and we've now made it, I think, more
proportional to the number of Members in this House.
To those
who may be watching, Members' statements are an opportunity for Members in this
House, private Members, to stand up and speak to an issue, usually from their
district, of importance, whether it be an anniversary or historic event.
Yesterday we heard a very positive one from a Member regarding one of our
provincial heroes, Ms. Kaetlyn Osmond. Ms. Osmond was the subject of a Member's
statement and I'm sure, I can guarantee you in the future we'll hear more
statements about Ms. Osmond as she continues on with, what is already a
brilliant skating career.
Now,
this is one change that I think is significant. Maybe not to those out there,
but I think it's important. It concerns Standing Order 92, and it's regarding
petitions. I've had the opportunity, having sat on both sides, to enter
petitions in the House and to sit on the other side and listen to petitions.
We all
understand the concept of petitions. It's an opportunity to stand up, to read
into the House a petition which is basically – it's an order from the people,
usually your district, asking, or calling upon government, calling upon the
House of Assembly, to take some action of some form. They can be quite useful.
We've seen them in the past actually have some success on various topics. They
can be successful, and in many cases it's a chance to bring attention to a
particular issue of importance to your district, or to the province, or to
certain people.
One of
the big issues we deal with as a Standing Orders Committee is a chance to make
them more 21st century savvy, we'll say. Right now we have a very old form
prescription that's laid out there and how it's supposed to be written. It has
to be in writing. We've talked about the opportunity to bring more technology
into this so that people get a chance to do it online. That's something we are
interested in, although there are some limitations that we face in being able to
do that.
Again,
we are trying to take steps to make this more accessible to the public, but I'd
like to think right now they are still accessible. There are not many places of
business in my district where I haven't driven around and had a petition or seen
a petition asking for people to sign. They get a chance to come into this House
and list them.
It's a
great opportunity – especially, obviously, for Members of the Opposition, we've
seen them from government in the past as well – to stand up. Usually you read
what is called the prayer, you read out what the petition is asking for, and
then you have an opportunity to discuss the significance of why this is such an
important issue and make sure government is listening.
We see
this every day in the Orders of the Day. After Question Period, that's one of
the things that come up. Members of the Opposition get a chance to stand up and
speak to that, and I think they work quite well.
One of
the issues in particular that I always thought was difficult was that in many
cases the Member of the Opposition takes the time to stand up and read the
petition, to discuss it, to lay out why it's so important. He can be quite
passionate. Obviously, this is something that's coming from, in many cases, your
constituents. Their names, their signatures, their addresses are right there.
They took the time to sign this. It's gone to the House, it's been vetted.
It used
to be very difficult, I found, sitting here. In many cases, I would see a
petition that might be related to something for my department and we never had a
chance to respond. I think it would be important. It's one thing for the
constituents to hear this again. It's all televised. The constituents see that
it's being put forward. I also think the constituents want to hear what is
government's position, policy and opinion on these issues, but there's no
opportunity. Standing Orders did not allow for that.
I've
always referenced one particular exchange I saw in this House where the former
Member for Bay of Islands, currently the Minister of Municipal Affairs, entered
a petition regarding – it may have been the Corner Brook hospital, which is
something he was known for. Any chance he could, he brought in a petition on the
Corner Brook hospital, the West Coast hospital.
During
this particular time, it was the former premier of the day, who I could say the
name. It was Mr. Tom Marshall, who was the premier, I believe, or he may have
been minister of Finance. I can't quite remember. But either way, the premier at
the time, or Mr. Marshall, whatever capacity he was in, stood up and wanted a
chance to speak to it.
The
rules dictate that unless the Opposition gives leave, they can't speak to this.
That was unfortunate. In this particular case, the Member for Bay of Islands at
the time, currently the Minister of Municipal Affairs – he's still the Member
for
Humber - Bay of Islands ,
I think – gave leave.
What we
witnessed that day in the House was what I thought was a really significant,
important and, I would say, genuine, thoughtful, well-played-out debate. It
wasn't theatrics. It wasn't some of the gamesmanship that goes on – which I have
no problem with, but this was a real debate. We had two Members for the West
Coast, one in government, one in Opposition, and we saw a debate back and forth
in the House. It was excellent.
Even as
the Members sat there listening, watching, I thought this is something that our
constituents do want to see, but it's only allowed when the Opposition gives
leave. Since that time I've taken the opportunity – I think one day a Member of
the Opposition raised a petition on something that's near and dear to me, which
is Marine Atlantic. I stood up and asked for leave to speak to that and I wasn't
given leave, which is fine, that's the rules. But I thought if the petition is
coming in, I think people want a chance to hear the rebuttal to that.
There
are a lot of petitions that come in. I remember some of the ones that – it's
funny, they come in now and it did before. It might be something on snow
clearing. It might be something on transportation issues, tourism issues, social
issues. You name it, they come in. Every one of them is important. It's an
important piece for the democratic process, but I also think an important piece
of the democratic process is the chance to respond to the petition. So that was
brought up during one of our Standing Orders meetings, and I'm quite pleased to
say that during these meetings we had an excellent debate within our committee,
which again is made up of Members of both sides.
What we
have here is an amendment to our current Standing Orders that will see the
current Standing Order 92 amended by renumbering Standing Order 92(1) by adding
immediately after that: A minister in their discretion may reply to a petition,
and the minister shall occupy no more than 90 seconds in doing so.
Just so
people understand that, currently petitions extend for up to three minutes. This
is one-half of three minutes, which is similar to a process we have now during
Ministerial Statements where a minister stands up and speaks for any amount of
time on a Ministerial, but the Official Opposition gets one-half of that time
and I believe the Third Party would get one-half of that time. So we used the
same formula here where a minister will get 90 seconds to respond to this
petition.
Again
it's discretionary. There's no obligation. In some cases, a petition might come
in that you had no idea it was an issue. You shouldn't be forced to respond to
that, to anything that you're not aware of. It gives you a chance – and I'll get
into this now in a second. So again, it is discretionary. In some cases there
will not be a response, nor should there, but it's just an opportunity to give
the response in particular cases.
minister's response under Standing Order 92(2) may be given on the day the
petition is presented or the next sitting day only. What that allows for – and
I'll use myself; I might sit here on Monday, hear the petition from the Member
opposite, I can respond that day and, in some cases, I may be well versed on
that issue. For instance, the one I referenced earlier, Marine Atlantic, I can
stand up and talk about it that day. It's something that I've lived with all my
life. It is something I live next to and deal with, but it might be an issue I'm
not aware of. So in order to give me a chance to provide a better debate, a
better response and a better answer to the people that are signing the petition,
I can come back the next day and respond to that with the same formula.
But we
don't want a system where people come back a week later responding to a petition
when the fact is we've all forgotten about it. So it's incumbent upon the
minister to come back right away in the next sitting day to make sure that they
respond to that.
Finally,
where in a session multiple petitions of the same subject matter are presented a
minister may respond to each petition in the manner contemplated under 92(3),
but only one response to a petition with the same subject matter may be made on
each sitting day. The fact is that some petitions can be repetitive, and that's
fine because in many cases you have numerous petitions on that issue. That's
fine and dandy, and again it's a great tool for Oppositions to use to get their
point across.
In this
case, what we're saying is that if their petition came in on a Monday and the
minister didn't respond and then it came in on a Tuesday, we don't want multiple
responses to the same petition. We don't want to belabour this process; we're
providing an opportunity here.
What I
would suggest is that my understanding is that this will be a provisional
Standing Order. So similar to the Standing Orders we changed where we brought in
Wednesday morning sittings and House of Assembly schedules, we brought them in
provisionally, which means we gave it a test drive, so to speak, saw if we liked
it, and then we vote on whether we accept it permanently. This will be
provisional. It's an opportunity for us to pilot this in many ways, to try it to
see how it works, and hopefully it will be beneficial to the process that we
have here. If not, we have an opportunity to say did we want to scrap that, did
we want to change it, did we want to modify it, alter it, whatever.
So what
I can say is that, again – and just so people understand, this is not a
government initiative, this is something that's done by a Standing Committee of
the House on Standing Orders of the House made up by multiple Members who we've
sat down and discussed this on multiple occasions. During this time Members from
all over this House will get an opportunity to speak to this. I'd like to think
that today I've spoken on behalf of our caucus, on behalf of government to say
that our position is to support this. I think it's important to the people of
this province to hear what government's positions are, and I think this is
another opportunity to do so, but one that can be done in a responsible manner.
We've
already had the chat in the last 24 hours on relevance and repetition. It's an
opportunity for government to stand, if they choose, to speak to this. And
again, every legislature has their own rules. In some cases you must respond in
writing, you must do this and you must do that. Every legislature has their own
Standing Orders, their own rules. In this case I think it's a good chance – it
was only in the last 15 years, 20 years that we've made the move to television
in this House, where people have a chance to witness their parliamentarians in
action. This is a chance now they should also see a response, if they see
choose, in action as well on TV.
I can
say that we're willing to support this. And at this time before I sit, I look
forward to the commentary from my colleagues across the way. I look forward to
supporting this resolution, and then to the incoming change which we will see
during this session of the House. Hopefully, starting tomorrow on petitions
we'll have an opportunity, in certain cases, to have a great debate on important
issues to the people of this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased to rise to speak to this particular motion today dealing with
the Standing Orders of this Legislature. For those out there not totally
familiar, there's a whole range of rules and operational requirements that are
listed under the Standing Orders of this Legislature and the Parliament, which
basically direct the flow of activity here in all sittings. Obviously, as the
presider of the precinct, Mr. Speaker, you would look to those in terms of
ruling as you conduct this Assembly and we, as parliamentarians, the various
leaders of the particular caucuses, would use that as they proceed through the
process in the House as well.
Today,
in this particular motion as put forward by the Justice and Public Safety
Minister looking at particular amendments to those Standing Orders, in
particular Standing Order 24(3)(b), as the minister indicated when he introduced
this, it's rather a minor change where what's added to that
section is
government orders.
When we
look at the motion and look
section 25 in relation to a Member who makes a
statement by any subject in the House, which we here refer often to a Member's
statement where a particular Member here in the House, one of 40, can get up and
speak to a particular item, an occurrence, an event, a whole range of activities
that are part of their role in representing those people they represent in their
district.
This
goes on further, and I'll speak to that. The provision now that looks at those
actual statements on those particular events that can happen, they're done here
in the House. As I said, it's on a range of activities. It could be an
anniversary, historic event, some accomplishment of an individual or a group. We
hear from time to time the recognition of a death of a very notable individual
in the province, in recognition of that here in the people's House, in the
Chamber and matters of local, provincial, national or international
significance.
Just
recently, Kaetlyn Osmond and her tremendous accomplishments at the recent
Olympics were brought here to the floor of the Legislature. It's an activity and
a function of the parliamentary process here to allow recognition of things
happening in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and activities with
people or groups. They're allowed to be brought here to the Assembly.
As we
know, too, the Assembly is broadcasted to most of the province, for people to
hear and understand and to recognize what has taken place. As well, it's forever
entrenched historically in Hansard. Because once it's spoken here or it's
delivered here, it's entrenched in Hansard
for all of history, so you could go back.
remember being at an individual's home just a little while ago and they had an
old document from the late 1800s, which was from the Legislature of Newfoundland
and Labrador, the country of Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess. But in that
itself – the document, very old – you could go through it and look at Members'
statements and activities in that document that was preserved forever. When
these events take place here and elected Members speak to them, it's forever
entrenched, not for that point in time but for history.
This
goes on to say: “Statements by a Member shall not be used to comment on aspects
of provincial government policy or to reflect on the decision or direction of
the House ….” So this is sort of out of the normal breadth and thrust of
political debate. This provision looks at, as I said, the recognition of
individuals, folks, activities or events that are important to the people of the
province. And it's important, as elected representatives, that we celebrate it,
we bring it here so it's shared with the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador what that actual event it.
Again,
getting to the debate back and forth across here, these are not meant to pose
any question, rather it's to express an opinion or giving that Member of the
Legislature here the ability to speak to that particular issue they want to
bring here to the House. They think it's important, either in their district
level, or certainly from a provincial level, or even sometimes a national level
in regard to what that understanding is.
Such
statements, again, outside of that debate back and forth are not debatable. They
do not lead to the introduction of a motion and the statements themselves are
not responded by to any other Member at that point in time. It's nothing like
the normal Question Period that you would ask someone sitting on this side of
the House in terms of an Opposition Member would ask a minister or a
parliamentary secretary a certain question, they would respond to it; it would
be outside the context of that and would not be commented on and would just be
presented here in the House.
The
motion also goes on and reflects on the Standing Orders, an amendment on a
provisional basis. It talks about Standing Order 92 is amended by renumbering it
as Standing Order 92(1) and then going forward and looking at the whole issue of
the minister.
Right
now, we present petitions in the House of Assembly, there's a format for that
petition; it's outlined in the Standing Orders. That could be anything related
in your district as an elected official. It could be an issue of public policy
that you wanted to bring to the attention here in the House. At a particular
time in the normal proceedings of the day, there would be a time for petitions.
We usually have six in that area, usually from the Opposition side, not many
from the government side. They would be issues of concern. It could be a
particular district issue, or it could be a public policy issue that we want to
bring attention to.
That
would be the petition that would be presented here in the Legislature. You need
so many required signatures, again, to authenticate the concern being expressed
by individuals and you would present them here in the House. Just today I
presented a petition on a piece of road infrastructure in my district in regard
to some of the requirements that are needed. I presented one with regard to
education and certainly the school in Mobile, some of the education aspects of
that.
remember a bridge in Trepassey in my district, Stoney River bridge and the
replacement of that and bringing awareness to it. So within that context, too,
you could have discussions with the minister of the day in regard to that
particular area and some of the possibilities in addressing the concerns that
are put forward by those residents in the petition.
That
petition is certainly grassroots democracy because it allows those individuals
in any part of the province to speak directly right here in the people's
Legislature, for issues of importance to them. In the bigger scope of things,
sometimes it may not seem big on a provincial scale but on a community scale or
on a regional scale, it's very important to those individuals. Within that
petition, as I said, it's a grassroots democracy. They have the ability to sign
a petition, put their name on it, say where they're from and basically format
what that concern is and we can present it here in the Legislature to be heard.
This
provision of the Standing Order we're talking about here speaks to that petition
process and goes to the process of a minister who's responsible for that area
where that actual petition exists to have an ability to respond and to give some
feedback on the issue that's being proposed in the actual petition.
Minister in his or her discretion may reply to a petition, and the Minister
shall occupy no more than 90 seconds in so doing ….” So some issue you bring up
here in the Legislature in terms of invoking government to take some action,
identifying an area of concern, would give an opportunity for a minister to
respond at that time; or it also suggests “a Minister's response under Standing
Order 92(2) may be given on the day the petition is presented or the next
sitting day ….”
That
would be, obviously, an opportunity, if the minister wasn't aware of the actual
details, to put together some information or details or have further discussion
on it. Then could report back to the Legislature and have a brief period to
bring that information back, and for those that presented the petition,
certainly for their benefit, too, I think, to hear what the response would be to
the actual petition. I think that helps from a legislative point of view and
from being elected representatives that you're not bringing a petition in,
presenting it and you really don't hear back.
I know
from my time in government and as a Cabinet minister, when we got petitions
presented, copies would be referred back to the department. We'd always try to
respond in writing to a group or individuals who had signed the petition to try
and let them know, from a department perspective and from a government policy
perspective, what was the direction and how we were moving forward on the
particular item that was brought here in the House that was of concern to them.
That's a
change in regard to the Standing Order and what this motion is about in regard
to a ministerial response to a particular issue that's brought here in the House
through a petition. It also goes on to say: “Where in a session multiple
petitions of the same subject matter are presented ….” That often happens
because an issue could be of such importance that there are multiple signatures
and multiple communities or people or others that have concerns. There could be
similar petitions. It could come from different people; it could come from
different Members on a particular topic or issue.
What
this provision is suggesting is that “a Minister may respond to each petition in
the manner contemplated under Standing 92(3), but only one response to a
petition with the same subject matter may be made on each sitting day.” So they
could get up either the immediate day or the day after when they have 90 seconds
to respond to the actual multiple petitions but, obviously, the understanding of
what that petition was about would be the same. They would have the ability to
get up and respond to that petition.
I'm
certainly looking forward to further discussion in regard to this resolution. As
I said, this is an ongoing process in regard to the Standing Orders. The
committees that have been struck over the past couple of years, I think, have
done some good work. They are committees that have been established by all
Members of the House. I know the Parliamentary Calendar. I look at things like
that in regard to give (inaudible) to the parliamentary session over a period of
time. It helps in regard to families with young kids in terms of managing time
frames, going back and looking at districts and having time to get back to your
district in between legislative sessions. Because there is always work that
needs to get done and there are always discussions and things that need to be
done for that period. So that break allows that to happen.
That's
an example here today of some of the work that's done by the Standing Orders
Committee that's made up of people here in the Legislature, on all sides of the
House, bringing forward recommendations to enhance the Standing Orders and the
operations here that you do, Mr. Speaker, and you use in terms of how this House
is administered and hold us in good standing, we would hope, in terms of the
process and what gets done.
I'm
certainly pleased to speak to this resolution. I'm looking forward to further
discussion, and I'll be eager to hear what other Members have to say.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity to rise and talk to this motion in the House today.
Just
before I get going, I want to say I'm a Member of the Standing Orders Committee
as well. Basically, what has happened here is the Standing Orders Committee is a
Committee of this House that, outside the sitting hours of this House we meet,
we discuss issues related to the operations of the House in terms of the
Standing Orders.
Now, the
Standing Orders – for the information of people who may be watching – are the
rules which we operate in this House. They're the rules that govern how we
conduct our business here in this House. So what this motion is doing is it's
taking some of the provisions that we talked about in this Standing Committee
and they're bringing them to the House for ratification.
The
Committee can't make the changes themselves, but they can make recommendations
as to changes that would be beneficial, that they think would be beneficial
after their examination of these various issues. They bring them to the House
through a motion of the Government House Leader. Then we all have an opportunity
here in this House to discuss it here and then to have a final vote on the
implementation of these changes to the Standing Orders, the rules which we
govern our operations here in this House.
Mr.
Speaker, these changes to the Standing Orders, this motion identifies a number
of changes in relation to – and it's interesting to note, the House is sort of
moving cautiously. When you make changes to something as fundamental as the
rules under which you operate, you don't want to throw everything out and start
with everything new. You want to sort of gradually implement some changes.
I think
the Committee is recommending sort of a provisional adoption which gives us an
opportunity to look at these rule changes to see how they impact the operation
of the House. If it's beneficial, then we can go on to make them permanent
changes to the Standing Orders. So I think the fact that these changes are
provisional is a very important and a very prudent manner to proceed.
We make
several changes; this motion would make several changes. One, related to
Members' statements. I think Members' statements are very interesting. Each
House of Assembly or legislature across Canada has different Standing Orders. In
our Standing Orders, Members' statements are non-partisan in nature. They're of
issues of a non-controversial nature. We congratulate people; we recognize an
achievement that someone has had. It's an important recognition of people in our
communities by individual Members, and they bring that to the House.
In other
Houses, they have partisan comments. These Members' statements take on a whole
different nature than they do in our House. It's usually a sharp, quick partisan
jab back and forth across the House. We have lots of opportunity for those types
of things in debate in our House. Again, I think it's important that we have
these sort of non-contentious, those non-partisan opportunities to just
congratulate people, recognize people in our communities. I think that's a very
positive aspect of our House. So I'm pleased we're continuing with that.
The
other changes are in relation to petitions, Mr. Speaker. Petitions, I guess,
have a really historic nature. The Member opposite, when he spoke, mentioned
that it's really grassroots democracy. Yes, I would agree with that. It's really
one of the few opportunities where the words of people are directly heard in
this House. It's an opportunity for someone to write a petition, to get a number
of people to sign the petition and to have a Member present their words in the
House.
course, this has a long, historic tradition in our democracy, and even before in
our development of democracy where you could petition a king even. So it's a
very interesting, important part of our House. This motion, sort of, changes how
we deal with them. Previously in this House, Members would present the petitions
and they would be heard by Members of this House.
The
changes being made here allow for ministers to respond immediately, or in a day
afterwards, to petitions, to issues that people have raised through their
Members in this House. So I think that's a very positive step because it's
important that people not only have the opportunity to voice their concerns but
they have the opportunity to hear government's response.
As I
said, in terms of Members' statements, each legislature has different ways of
proceeding in terms of how they operate. In other Houses across Canada, there
are provisions that government must respond within a certain period of time.
Some require written responses to petitions within a certain period of time.
Other legislatures don't require responses. So I think this change in our rules
is a prudent way of proceeding as well.
We've
allowed the opportunity for ministers and parliamentary assistants to respond to
issues that have been raised. I think that's a very important change to have
made. In the future, we may consider looking at some other options but I think
that's a very positive change to have made as well.
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I think we're moving in the right
direction. I think the provisional nature of these changes gives us a chance to
test it out.
I think
the Standing Committee and other Members of the committee; I just want to say we
worked very well together. I think sometimes in this House we have a lot of
partisan back and forth but when we sit down in committee, usually it's people
talking about what is best for this province. I think that's a very positive
aspect of committee. It's a way sometimes – sometimes committees are public,
sometimes we just sit down, there are no recordings or whatever, just the
minutes are kept, but I think it's been a very positive experience for me.
I'm very
positive about these changes that have been made, and I look forward to hearing
what other people have to say on them as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased, too, this afternoon to stand and speak to the resolution that deals
with changes to our Standing Orders. As others have said, it's actually a
pleasure being on this committee. I'm really glad to be part of the discussions
that we've been having over the last while – actually, a couple of years now.
I think
I said once before in this House that I've been on that committee for years and
we had never met. So it's been a real pleasure since the general election that
this committee is in operation, because we all recognize there are changes that
need to happen to how we proceed in the House. Experience tells us that with
different things, things can be done better, things can be done differently.
It's imperative, I think, that we constantly have a Standing Orders Committee
operating, not just in name but operating, functioning and deal with the ways in
which we conduct business in the House of Assembly.
I think
it's fair to say that as we started our work it was pretty daunting. The
Standing Orders had not been changed in quite a while. A lot of the Standing
Orders – I wouldn't say a lot, but some things are outdated, even in language,
language needs to change, et cetera. I think one of the things we agreed to is a
committee was an important way to go, and that was to deal first with things
that would be easier to change, easier to put new things in place, to use a
common parlance, to deal with the low-hanging fruit.
The
low-hanging fruit is just as important as that which is further away from you,
but we went with things that were a bit simpler to deal with first. One was –
that we've already amended – putting a new calendar in place, actually having a
calendar. The fact that now in 2018, we even know what our calendar is going to
look like in 2019.
So I
think giving ourselves that discipline of putting a calendar in place,
understanding that circumstances can change the calendar, understanding there
are always things that are going to come up that could make it different, but to
have a calendar in place – and we've been pretty faithful to that calendar since
that got put in place last year. That's an example of one of the things we could
do easily and did.
Now with
the resolution today, we have other things which were easy to deal with. Adding
government orders, for example, in a listing in the Standing Orders. Another one
was our Members' statements. I think it's important. I don't think we are doing
anything differently than what we now have in the Standing Orders.
I think
the Standing Orders actually do reflect what we do as Members here in this House
when we stand and recognize an individual or recognize a community or an
accomplishment. I think the Standing Orders now actually say what we do.
Since
I've been in this House, I do not remember anybody making statements as a Member
which dealt with government policy. I don't ever remember that happening. I
don't remember us in the House, any Members, making statements that could be
embarrassing or that could be trying to get at another party in the House. I
think we all see it as a moment for really respecting people in our
constituencies and organizations in our constituencies.
I think
what we now have in the Standing Orders – and that's part of today's resolution
that we'll be passing – is language that does reflect what we try to do here in
the House of Assembly. It was really good being part of this discussion.
We've
also made changes to the petitions that we bring here in the House. The actual
changes to how the petition will now be worded is not in the Standing Order
itself. That, I imagine, would be in an appendix like it is now. The appendix
will reflect the new – I suspect there will be an appendix, but it will reflect
the new way in which a petition will be worded, so we won't be using sort of
archaic language as we were using.
Very
often people would look at the form they had to put a petition in – you know
they'll contact me and say: We're looking at doing a petition on such an issue,
what is the format we have to use for the House of Assembly? When we would give
them the format and they'd see this archaic language, it was a bit strange to
them.
One of
the things that always struck me was the word “sheweth.” In the old form of our
of what the petition is about and then presenting the prayer of the petition. So
I think that's really good.
I do
like the idea that we all agreed that petitions can be responded to by
ministers. Very often I've had people say to me: You read petitions for us in
the House, what did the minister say? I'll say, well, the minister doesn't
usually stand and respond to a petition. People who are asking us to read these
petitions want to hear what the government has to say about the petition. They
just don't want us presenting it, they also want a response from government.
I think
it is extremely important that ministers who are responsible for an area can
choose to stand, especially – a petition could be dealing with an issue that
maybe has been resolved since people signed the petition. So it gives an
opportunity to the minister to be able to stand and say that's already been
taken care of. I can tell people this is what is happening. That makes it even
more meaningful that the petition has been brought.
I think
it's really, really good that we are allowing that, and I think we have some
precise language there about when it can happen. A minister would respond either
on the day the petition was presented or the next sitting day only. Because
sometimes you get repetition of petitions, so you won't get a minister standing
every time a petition is similar to the one that was read the day before. You
won't get a minister standing every time and speaking to that petition.
When the
petition is first presented the minister will be able to respond, if the
minister feels the requirement to do so. We have that covered here as well.
“Where in a session multiple petitions of the same subject matter are presented
a Minister may respond to each petition in the manner contemplated …, but only
one response to a petition with the same subject matter may be made on each
sitting day.”
I think
that's extremely important, that we don't have too much repetition going on
because then that would make the whole thing, I think, a bit of a mockery of the
whole thing. I think what's important is the understanding that there may be
something very direct that the government can respond to in the petition and now
the possibility will be there.
As has
been said by some of my other colleagues, we do have some major issues that
we're going to be looking at as the Standing Orders Committee. The Government
House Leader mentioned the legislative committees, which are so important for
the work here in the House of Assembly. I really look forward to our work in the
Standing Orders Committee on the legislative committees. I don't know how
quickly we can get that work done to bring some discussions here into the House
with regard to how legislative committees work –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I don't
know how quickly we can get that work done, but I think it is very important
because it will be part of further democratization of what's happening here with
regard to bills in particular.
We have
a lot of work to do. What we're doing today, as I said, is pretty simple but
important, especially the petitions, because I think the petitions in particular
really do affect the constituents. The petitions affect the people in the
province. How easily they can put a petition together and how we can present it
for them and if now we can elicit response from government, then I think that
piece of work is really good.
The
Government House Leader did talk about the discussion we had with regard to
online electronic petitions. We really looked at it from a number of angles and
it really, at this point in time, didn't seem like something that we were
capable of doing. Number one, it takes money; people understand that. Every time
you come up with an idea, it's not as simple to say oh, we can do that. Getting
the programming, being able to make electronic petitions work, really does take
money.
I would
like to think that when we have a bit more flexibility with money in the
province that perhaps we can do that. I've had people ask me about electronic
petitions, and I think it's good for them to know that we haven't gone that
route yet, not because we haven't discussed it and we've looked at it from
various angles. There are actually I think only two jurisdictions in the country
who use them; one is Ottawa and the other one is Quebec.
So we
have looked at it, we've looked at it in detail, but we thought as a Standing
Orders Committee that it wasn't something that we were able to recommend at this
point. I think it's important to point that out for people who were hoping that
we could, at some point, move to electronic petitions.
I think
keeping with the resolution that we have on the Table, Mr. Speaker, these are
the main points I'd like to make. I say to those listening: Hang on, because we
have much more to do, like the legislative committees, and we'll be back with
other resolutions, I'm sure.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take too long here, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments on
it. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any issues, really, with what's being proposed
here. Certainly, the change as it relates to Members' statements and so on, that
has already been discussed, I have no issue or concern with that. I just wanted
to make a couple of comments as it relates to the idea of petitions and some of
the changes being made regarding petitions.
First of
all, I think it's a good idea to actually give ministers an opportunity to
respond to petitions. It makes all the sense in the world to me. If a Member in
the Opposition can stand up and bring forth a petition on behalf of
constituents, read that petition, speak to that petition and raise the concerns,
then I think the process, quite frankly, up until now has been somewhat flawed
that a minister can't respond, so that the people can hear the other side of the
story and maybe understand why something is not being done. Or if the minister
has something to update, when it might get done and how it might get addressed,
then the minister can address that. I think it's a very positive move, to be
honest with you, and I will be supporting it.
The only
couple of points I will make on it, though, is that when we look at the
amendment that's being made here, it says: “A Minister in his or her discretion
may reply to a petition, and the Minister shall occupy no more than 90 seconds
in so doing ….” It says a minister. It doesn't specify a minister.
The only
point I would make there is that I believe that if I were, for example, to
present a petition on K to 12, then it should be the Minister of Education
that's responding to that petition. It shouldn't be a free-for-all for any
minister to stand up and respond to a petition about something that has nothing
to do with his or her department.
I'm sure
the intent here, when this was talked about, I'm assuming would be that it would
be the minister of the department for which the petition is being brought
forward would be the appropriate person to respond. I assume that's the intent
but it doesn't say that. So technically speaking, based on what's written here,
I can bring forth a petition for the Department of Natural Resources, for
argument's sake, and the Minister of Health could respond to it because it
doesn't say the particular minister. I just use that as a random example.
I think
that's something that would be better if it was spelled out that it's the
minister for the department of which the petition is presented should be the
minister that responds, not some other minister. I think it would also be
helpful to have reference in here to relevance as well. Relevance is very
important in debate, Mr. Speaker. Certainly when we're looking at any
legislation or bills and so on, relevance is a factor. Relevance should be a
factor in petitions as well. That should be by the person presenting the
petition, as well as the minister now, if the minister is going to respond to
the petition, it should also be relevant, and the Speaker should be calling
relevance on those issues.
If I'm
speaking to a particular issue, I present a petition, then my commentary should
reflect the spirit of the petition. I should not be using it as an opportunity
to try to bash somebody on the other side and, in response to that, a minister
in responding to petition should likewise have to stick to the pray of the
petition and not use that as an opportunity to take shots across the bow and so
on, on unrelated matters. I think that's important.
Like I
said, the petition should be relevant. We had an incident, Mr. Speaker, in the
last sitting of this House – I recall it distinctly – where a Member actually
presented a petition, it was about the book tax, and that was after the book tax
had been repealed. Here we were presenting a petition asking the government to
take back the book tax when that had already occurred. So why are we presenting
a petition asking government to do something that they already did?
That's
just another example in terms of relevance. I think relevance should apply to
the person presenting the petition, it should apply to the commentary on the
petition and it should apply to the minister that is responding to the petition.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, that would be within your purview to ensure that it is
relevant, but it would be nice to see an actual statement written into the
Standing Orders that speaks to the issue of relevance of petitions, both in the
presentation and in the response to those petitions.
The only
other point I wanted to make – and it has been raised here, because I've had a
lot of people contact me as well, and that's about the electronic petitions. I
understand, in listening to the Member who just spoke, she said that it was
considered and they felt that they couldn't do it at this time. There are
obviously technology issues there and there's a cost associated to it. I'm not
sure exactly because she didn't indicate how cost prohibitive it is or how
challenging it would be to do it.
I do
think, though, that as we modernize the House, we have technology, I realize not
everybody in the province, 100 per cent, can avail of it. We can still have the
paper petitions for people who can't avail of it but for most people who can,
it's another avenue for people to get their points across and it would make it a
lot smoother and a lot easier.
So I say