PDF Version

May 23, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 37

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin, in the public gallery, I would like to welcome representatives from the Port Rexton Fire Department: Deputy Fire Chief Lloyd Davis, Captain Shawn Piercey, Lieutenant Brett Rex, Firefighter Steve Kew and his wife Christine, Junior Firefighter Morgan Ballett, Fire Chief Geff Fowlow, along with resident Gabe Fisher.

They are here this afternoon for a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia West - Bellevue, Exploits, Ferryland, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and Bonavista.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, on May 6, I was honoured to attend the graduation of the 2023 graduating class of Creston Collegiate located in Blaketown in the neighbouring District of Placentia - St. Mary's, which many students attend from the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

It was a pleasure to witness the talented performances and inspiring speeches as they celebrated such a huge milestone in their lives. I would like to thank all their families, teachers and the community for their continued support, as it was very evident at their beautiful ceremony. I would also like to thank Ms. Heather Mills for the invitation and providing me the opportunity to address the graduates.

This is a remarkable achievement that marks the culmination of years of hard work, dedication and perseverance. Spread your wings and soar toward your dreams and always be proud to call Newfoundland and Labrador your home.

Speaker, I am asking all hon. Members of the 50th General Assembly to please join me in congratulating the 2023 graduating class of Crescent Collegiate and wish them great success with their future endeavours.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to congratulate the Botwood Fire Department on being the recipient for the 2023 Newfoundland and Labrador Change Makers Award.

This award is granted to a group that has demonstrated outstanding commitment to Muscular Dystrophy Canada. It's based on leadership in the areas of advocating for changes in public policy, increasing awareness and advancing mission delivery efforts through education, networking, support activities, volunteer engagement, enhancing the quality of life of those with neuromuscular disorders and fundraising.

The Botwood Fire Department has been fundraising for Muscular Dystrophy Canada since 1985, reaching a milestone of $100,000 this year. They collect money through their boot drive, raffle tickets and selling ornaments.

Speaker, I would like for all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in recognizing the Botwood Fire Department on receiving the 2023 NL Change Makers Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Belle Melvin of Bay Bulls and a Grade 12 student at Mobile Central High School.

Belle was awarded a trip to France and Belgium June 27 to July 5 to take

part in the pilgrimage of the Trail of the Caribou by the Royal Newfoundland Legion as the provincial representative for Girl Guides of Newfoundland and Labrador for outstanding work with the guiding program.

She has been a member of the Girl Guides of Canada for 13 years and is currently enrolled as a ranger. She is also a junior leader with the Witless Bay Embers unit.

In 2019, she earned the Ambassador Award at the NL Heritage Fair for a project covering letters from her great-great uncle Matthew Rossiter, a past resident of Cape Broyle who died during the Battle at Beaumont-Hamel July 1, 1916.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Belle Melvin on her awards and her dedication to the Guiding movement and as well her interest in preserving our heritage here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a very accomplished athlete from Grand Falls-Windsor. Melvin Hanhams has been involved with Special Olympics for over a decade. He has participated in various sports such as track and field, bowling and snowshoeing as an active member of the Exploits Hurricanes. It was only this past year Melvin joined the golfing aspect of Special Olympics and he has certainly made his mark. This summer Melvin will be representing Team Canada at the World Special Olympic Games in Berlin, Germany come June.

Melvin Hanhams is a dedicated Special Olympian here in the province and I am so proud to watch him whether it be on the field, in the bowling alley or on the golf course. He has always been independent and can be seen in Grand Falls-Windsor these days working very hard on his skills as he prepares for the games.

When he is not competing, he remains loyal to his teammates and coaches, lending a hand to other athletes in their respective sports.

Please join me as we wish my very good friend, Melvin Hanhams, good luck in the upcoming world Special Olympic Games in Europe.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Responding to a fire call on March 6, 2023, arriving firefighters from the Port Rexton Fire Department started offensive fire tactics to combat the flames. Firefighter Steve Kew radioed for location and knew upon arrival he had to suit up. Fire Chief Geffrey Fowlow, while engaged in combating the flames, was informed there was a man down on the other side of the pumper. It was Steve Kew.

Fire Chief Fowlow triaged and immediately determined he was in cardiac arrest. Yelling out for the AED and oxygen, while simultaneously removing Kew's bunker gear, the life-saving procedure commenced with Fire Chief Fowlow and resident Gabe Fisher performing CPR. While the AED was being operationalized, Captain Shawn Piercey took over the CPR and oxygen was supplied by Deputy Fire Chief Lloyd Davis.

It was four shocks with the AED that revived Steve Kew that day and today he credits the availability of the AED and certainly the fast action of his well-trained firefighting team and Gabe Fisher that he lives today.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the life of Steve Kew and the heroic efforts of Geffrey Fowlow, Gabe Fisher, Shawn Piercey and Lloyd Davis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Before we move into Ministerial Statements, I just want to wish a lady in my district a very happy 106 birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Ms. Victoria Compton is living in the long-term care facility in Lewisporte. They celebrated her birthday on Friday and I just wanted to wish her a very Happy Birthday on behalf of all of our Members. I'm sure she did celebrate in fine style, lots of dancing, a lot of music and a lot fun. So Happy Birthday, Victoria.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Speaker.

I wish to acknowledge World Family Doctor Day, celebrated globally this past Friday, and to recognize the exceptional contributions of family doctors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year's theme is “Family doctors: the heart of health care.” Family physicians, whether in their own clinics or as members of Family Care Teams, are vital to the provision of quality primary care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, our government continues to work to better support family doctors so that they can provide the best possible care to their patients.

We have worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association on a Shared Agenda for Family Medicine to establish permanent and sustainable improvements to family medicine in the province. We've recently co-signed blended capitation remuneration, which fairly compensates doctors for treating patients with complex needs.

We've created collaborative workspaces through Family Care Teams to share the workloads in primary care.

Our recruitment and retention initiatives, such as the Family Physician Income Guarantee, the Family Practice Start-Up Program and others, have helped attract and retain new, qualified family physicians.

The recently announced Manager of Physician Relations position in the Department of Health and Community Services will continue to strengthen our relationship with physicians.

As we work to transform health care in this province, we are tremendously grateful for family doctors and their dedication to the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking family doctors for their unwavering dedication, care and compassion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work and dedication of family doctors right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. World Family Doctor Day, which is celebrated annually on May 19, recognizes the essential role of family doctors in providing primary health care services across the globe. Unfortunately, family doctors have had to shoulder much of the burden to keep primary care functioning in our province for far too long.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has estimated that 136,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador are without a family doctor – a staggering number, under the leadership of this Liberal government.

While we celebrate family doctors, this government needs to do far better in attracting and retaining these critical health care professionals. Newfoundland and Labrador is a special place to live and work. It's time for this Liberal government to do what is necessary when it really matters for our family doctors and most of all for the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We, too, recognize the important work of doctors. We must ensure doctors are valued members of our health care system and they have the supports needed so they can be a part of the solution in health care and yet have positive work-life balance. This means being upfront about the shortage of nurses and medical support and giving doctors confidence that the retention of medical staff is your priority.

SPEAKER: Are there are further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm happy to have the Premier back in the House to answer some questions on the crab fishery. We pushed for six weeks to get the Premier to be involved in the crab dispute.

Speaker, harvesters and plant workers have had no income for six weeks while the Premier was invisible. How is he going to repair the financial harm inflicted upon these individuals?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say how much this government appreciates and values the hard-working women and men in the crab fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: As I've said many times, it's not just the economic contributions they make, but it's indeed the historic and social contributions that they've made and will continue to make to a sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I'm sure the Member opposite knows and appreciates and it has been echoed by both stakeholders in this dispute, I have been involved, as has the Minister of Fisheries, from day one, Mr. Speaker. I was happy to lend further support in facilitating a deal to get those boats back on the water this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's a good thing that we, and the people of this province, pushed for six weeks to get the Premier involved because I don't know what state we'd be in in the crab fishery –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: – right now if that hadn't happened.

Speaker, for six weeks these individuals were looking for leadership from the Premier. They had no income and the Premier was invisible. For over six weeks, we asked the Premier to get involved. If only he had listened, the crab season could have been in full swing for weeks.

Is the Premier going to wait another six weeks before he intervenes on the shrimp fishery?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I mentioned before, and as I think both stakeholders have acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, I've been involved in this and this government has been involved in it. I've been involved in it personally. The Minister of Fisheries has been involved with it personally since day one.

Although he's trying to spin a false narrative, Mr. Speaker, that's simply not true. The facts are that we've been involved. We've helped facilitate a deal that allowed those boats to get back to the water to ensure that we have a profitable crab fishery, not just today, but into the future, and that was the commitment that I gave to both sides, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we needed six weeks ago was more than just a phone call; we needed the Premier to show leadership and sit with the two parties involved and come up with a deal that would work for the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: The FFAW asked the Premier for a public commitment – and I quote: Revamp the final offer selection process. To date, the Premier has made no such commitment publicly.

I ask the Premier: Will you make the commitment here and now?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I did say to both stakeholders was that I would commit and I have committed – I committed to the crab panel when I met with the 15 crab fishermen, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this instrument was to ensure that boats got in the water. Boats were not in the water on time this year, Mr. Speaker. So it's incumbent upon us to ensure that there is a process that gets boats in the water. What that process will look like ultimately, I'm not sure, but it will be done with due consultation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, again, and I'll reiterate about being proactive versus reactive. That's what's wrong with this administration here, being reactive after the fact. We're going to have the same situation next year. We're having the same situation in the shrimp fishery and the same in the lobster fishery –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: – without some proactive approach here.

The Liberal government has a track record of hiding reports, doing deals in secret, ignoring concerns of Indigenous communities and saying just trust us.

Will the Premier commit to making any deal regarding the Churchill River or hydro generation in Labrador fully public and bring the agreement to the House of Assembly for debate before any agreement is signed?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've said publicly many times, this will be done with due consultation with respect to Indigenous groups and their rights within this province.

It will also be done with full public debate, Mr. Speaker, different than what happened with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was enough debate in this House of Assembly to have a discussion around what happens for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We haven't seen it with this administration. The people of this province have a right to know.

Yes or no: Will the Premier make public all the details before he comes to any agreement about the hydro assets?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we're not going to, at this point, negotiate in public. I don't think that's what the Member opposite wants. I don't think that's what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want, Mr. Speaker. That would weaken our negotiating position. We have a process in place, but once we come to a point –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: Once we come to a point where we can discuss this, Mr. Speaker, certainly we'll have a debate on the floor of the House of Assembly; very different, once again, than the tactics taken by the previous administration to ensure that Muskrat Falls got done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I guess they could table the Rothschild report and that would be a good start to finding out some of these answers. It's pretty easy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Speaker, rather than dismiss their concerns, will the minister commit to a full, independent, structural and environmental assessment of the school?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I think I'll start by saying, if this school was not safe it would be shut already and the students would be at home with virtual learning. That is, however, not the case. We have to deal with facts.

I would like to table the occupational health and safety report, the health inspectors report and, for clarity, an attendance record for Frank Roberts Junior High, which shows it is amongst the highest of all junior high schools in the region for the month of May.

Facts matter. The fact that the Member opposite does not trust these inspectors, the ones he stood up and cheered for during COVID who kept him safe, now they're neither trustworthy nor independent nor reliable. Shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Minister, a mess is saying shame on me. Just imagine the gall of this man to say shame on me. Shame on you, Minister; shame on what you're saying to the people of my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Why don't you come up in front of the microphone? He should have come up in front of the microphone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order!

The Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: He should have come up in front of the microphone, Mr. Speaker, and told the parents. I gave him that option several times. But, no, he'll stand up in the House of Assembly under his parliamentary privilege and spew facts that are not factual. He think's they're facts but they're not factual.

You've got to be careful because someone is going to jump up and call you out on a point of order for what you say or the wrong word, but he owes it to the people, Speaker. Walkthroughs and cosmetic reviews are not cutting it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: We have all seen the pictures of furniture chewed up by rats and buckets catching water in the hallways. Parents have questioned the air quality, mould and overcrowding in classrooms.

Again: Will the minister commit to an independent investigation and public report into these concerns?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Facts: I table the occupational health and safety report. This school is old but safe. So if you do not believe your own inspectors, people you once worked with when you were in government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Address the Chair, please.

J. HAGGIE: These individuals kept us safe during COVID; everybody cheered when they said what they did. Now, because they're not saying what the Member opposite wants to hear, suddenly they are untrustworthy, they are not factual and they are misleading this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HAGGIE: Health inspector: sanitation and health, excellent. Attendance record: they are going to school in droves this month, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts. The fact is this school is old but it is safe. It needs some work and we're doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I trust the parents, I trust the students, I trust the teachers and I stand with the people in my district. If they have a concern with that school than so do I.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the district is supposed to be part of the department, so we're told, so why do we have two separate voices on this issue?

Minister, is it your voice or Mr. Hall? Who is right? Because I am hearing the two different voices: Who's right?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think you'll find that while there are two different voices, the facts are the same. They are said by two different people. Mr. Hall, as superintendent of schools, is responsible for operational matters. I and my department are responsible for policy and strategy. We are not telling different stories. We are providing the House with accurate, factual, documented information from trustworthy and independent sources. He just doesn't like what he's hear.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I might have a hearing problem – which I actually do – but I can hear loud and clear what I'm hearing across the way. I won't put into words what this man is saying.

The people in my district deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve better, and he gets on about his facts. What about the overcrowding in the classrooms? What about no cafeteria for 650 children? What about mice running wild? What about rats running wild? Answer those questions, Minister. Don't get on with those facts; tell me about those facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

For some clarity and a little bit of calm, the facts are here. There is a mice problem, which is common to large public buildings at this time of the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HAGGIE: It is being remediated. The issue of the cafeteria was partly addressed by my predecessor and the work is continuing. It will be finished over the course of this summer. The principal and the vice-principal showed me when I actually went around there this morning.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, residents of the District of Bonavista are forced to fight this government for title to their own land: the Diamonds, the Abbotts and the Walshes, to name a few. These cases are before the courts with this government wasting taxpayer resources and tying up court time to fight people over their own homes.

Why does the minister believe this to be a good use of taxpayer dollars?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Speaker.

As we all know, Crown Lands has a process people need to go through from time to time. People may think they own land and, in actual fact, don't own land at all. That happens from time to time. There's a reason things go to court. When things are in court, we don't talk about them. I cannot talk about the cases that the Member opposite just talked about, but I can just tell you when it goes to court, it's very complex, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, residents like the Diamonds have lived on their land for years. Land that they have deeds to; land that they have paid property tax on for years. These residents are forced to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers all over the District of Bonavista to fight for their own land of which they had homes on for years.

Why is the minister choosing to spend time and taxpayer dollars on these fights?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: We have a

section 36, Mr. Speaker, in Crown Lands in which people would apply for. That would be, if you were there 20 years previous to 1977, you need to prove it. Sometimes people, their memories are a little bit faded, a little bit off. We have actual photographs. Lots of times people say our house was there for years. A photograph doesn't lie. When you take a photograph, and I'm not talking about any house, any particular one that he's talking about there, but if you take a photograph and it's wooded or it's bogland or it's whatever, if there's no house on it during the photograph time, there was no house there.

You can't have any better logic than that. That's why people go to court sometimes and they do quieting of titles. They can do all sorts of things, Mr. Speaker. I encourage anybody who has a property now, get it registered and get it straightened out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, these people had affidavits showing that they lived there and their house was there for decades upon decades. Quite different.

The solid Waste Management Strategy came into effect in May 2017. The waste facilities in the District of Bonavista are overcapacity. There are at least eight online landfills, despite the strategy's goal of eliminating such landfills across the province.

I ask the minister: Are online landfills part of the tourism strategy in the beautiful District of Bonavista?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Speaker, I'd like to go through the

preamble, coming up and leading to. For those people who have proper documentation and everything proves right, they'll have no issues. It's the people who don't have it all perfectly right are the ones who end up in court.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, the question was: Are online landfills part of the tourism strategy in the beautiful District of Bonavista?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't speak to the tourism strategy because that's not included in any tourism strategy I've ever read or this government would ever endorse. From my perspective, I know that we're working with the region to try to find some solutions about transportation of their waste management down there. I know we're consistently working with our regional authorities on those matters and we're going to continue to work with that.

Obviously, we want people to dispose of their trash and their waste in the best manner possible and in the safest manner for the environment we all represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Health and Community Services about keeping the doors of the Bonavista hospital open when no physician was available for the ER. The minister stated to that question he was going to check with the Provincial Health Authority on this matter.

Due to its great significance, a life-and-death matter, can the minister update the hon. House on his findings?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are working on strategies to have Category B facilities remain open when a physician is not available. There is an RFP that is about to be awarded, if it's not already awarded by officials within the department, to allow for physician oversight.

We are going to have individual nurses, registered nurses and nurse practitioners, trained in airway management and other procedures that will be required to ensure that the Category B sites remain open. It is something that we are actively working on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, a CBC national report last week raised concerns over the practice of dose splitting of medications for certain eye diseases.

I ask the minister: Are split doses being used in this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that there was an issue a number of years ago that was referred to the regulatory body at the Pharmacy Board. There was also an investigation done by the department and there was no proof or evidence found of dose splitting in this province, Mr. Speaker.

I know that Health Canada regulates the manufacture of drugs, Mr. Speaker, including dose splitting that happens within the country. I know that they are developing policies around this issue. We look forward to those policies as well, but there is no evidence of dose splitting in this province.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The question was: Is the minister aware that there are dose splits being used in the province, not been happening in the province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, we're not aware of dose splitting happening and being shipped into the province, Mr. Speaker. Again, the NLPDP pays for the full vial that is provided to beneficiaries of that program. There's been no evidence in the department of dose splitting or of doses being split and sent into the province for this procedure.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I think the documents that are out there will show that there are split doses being used in the province. Those documents alone show that 13,000 eye procedures were performed in this province.

I ask the minister: Is the department aware of any adverse patient effects due to the use of dose splitting?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if there are any concerns, they should be sent to the regulatory body, the Pharmacy Board, who will investigate and look at these issues. I know that the issue had been referred to the regulatory body previously. Our own auditor, within the drug prescription program, has looked at this as well and there's no evidence to support what's been out there that dose splitting has happened in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hears, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I would assume the Department of Health and Community Services is the overriding body to look at health and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There have been safety concerns raised.

So I ask the minister: What steps has the department taken to investigate the matter and to ensure there are no risks to patients?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Health Canada regulates these practices, Mr. Speaker. I've asked the department officials when this issue came to my attention just recently to look to Health Canada to determine what policies are in place regarding this. I've also asked officials within the department to carry out another review to be absolutely certain based on their previous review of this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

During Estimates, we were told the long delayed Team Gushue Highway project was moving to – quote – RFP to hire a consultant to do detailed design work. Now The Telegram reports after refusing to turn over the preliminary engineering report, the department is saying there is still a funding application to be submitted to the federal government.

Speaker, which is it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Which is it? It will get done. There is an announcement made. We work with our federal counterparts and I've answered that question in this House many, many times and I've always said that the Member opposite, interested in the completion of that project, we're going to get it done. But as I've said before, he doesn't like the good news. He should celebrate the good news but he decides to take a different route and to be negative about it, but we will get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: So you're eventually going to send it in and get it done, are you? Is that the way it's going to happen?

Speaker, according to The Telegram story, the preliminary report will be released when – quote – the last details of the application for the completion of the Team Gushue Highway has been finalized.

Speaker, after five years of excuses, has the department even finalized an application for funding? I'd like a little good news.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: The good news is it's going to get done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, he just has difficulty being in a celebratory mood because he's a Progressive Conservative. We're Liberal over here; we're going to get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Speaker, I'm just wondering if I should put in an application for a car or for an ATV to go ride on the road. I'm not sure yet.

Speaker, on April 26, the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: – told this House to stay tuned. On May 1, the federal Minister LeBlanc said to expect an announcement in the coming days. Coming days, yeah. Now we learn there's no budget set aside for the project and the government has not even applied – shocker.

After five years of conflicting stories and excuses, when will the project be done? Will it be in this decade?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Well, I'm glad he's got a reporter as his advisor. But, as I say, Mr. Speaker, this project will get done. I know he has difficulty with it because when it comes to fruition there will be a smile on his face. But right now there's not a smile on his face because he knows we will get it done, but that's his choice. If he doesn't want to have a smile on his face, I've got one on mine. You don't have one on yours.

Plus, there's such a thing called budgetary process. He wants more, but he's voting against this budget that's putting money into his district, by the way, paving badly needed and his mayors in his communities say we need it, but he's voting against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: The Member for Ferryland is voting against the budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: I hope the plans for the twinning of the highway go faster than that, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, forest fires came dangerously close last year to jeopardizing towns across Central Newfoundland.

With some forecasts predicting a dryer summer for the province this year, is the government confident to tackle upcoming forest fire season?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much.

The quick answer to that is yes, definitely we are. We have four water bombers in place. We have our crews strategically located throughout the province. We have helicopters on standby. We are where we need to be.

Should we need further assistance, like Alberta is looking for assistance right now, we will look for assistance – should we need it. But right now we're in a great place when it comes to it. Do you know what? I can't say this enough; people have to be more, more cautious in the country than ever. One dropped match, one dropped cigarette could cause a forest fire to a catastrophic level, so be very, very cautious when you're in the country this season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, last summer an access to information report found that there were many days where water bombers and crews were not available.

Does the minister have enough crews for the upcoming fire season?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's always a pleasure to talk about these very valuable assets that we have. Currently, we have four units that are ready to go. We have three that are fully staffed, ready to go, and it's always been an issue in terms of recruiting. We're continuing to recruit for more. It's a process. The speciality of these water bomber pilots is what it is, it's a speciality. We recognize that, but the recruitment process is always ongoing and we're looking for more. But we do have four units ready to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

We want to make sure we're proactive so this doesn't happen in Central Newfoundland and Labrador once again this year.

As of March 2023, there were 332 applications for financial assistance due to Hurricane Fiona; however, only 20 of these have been paid out.

Why is it taking so long for people to get the relief they need to rebuild their lives now?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I have to ask the Member again, maybe he can repeat the numbers. You said there are 20 paid out of 332?

C. TIBBS: That's the last number.

A. PARSONS: Because the numbers that the Member references are false. I can tell you right now as of last week, I know that there were 100 houses in the first round that were lost, I believe over 90 per cent have actually been paid out. So I just want to make sure that we get the numbers clear on that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Let's ask a few questions on planning. During Estimates, the Minister of Education revealed that his department has a plan to amalgamate and will move along the road with that plan but it has not been approved by government and Cabinet.

I ask the minister: Considering the potential ramifications of amalgamation if not done correctly, is this not putting the cart before the horse?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Just to add some clarity, that was the second phase of the plan. The first phase is not yet completed. Once we have got to that stage, the second phase will be ready and we will work through it. We have an implementation working group, under which there are numerous subgroups, I think six in all, each looking at particular areas. So there is academic, there is HR, there are elements with Finance and there are elements with OCIO. That plan is under way and is progressing very nicely.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Of course it is always good to have a plan before you embark upon a journey. That is not the case here obviously. The minister also said that when the plan is eventually approved, Cabinet will decide what is appropriate to release.

I ask the minister: Shouldn't the full plan be released to school communities, organizations such as the NLTA, parents, communities and the House of Assembly, for discussion and input?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Member opposite is conflating, I think, more than one answer there; Cabinet decisions are not mine to reveal or not. The oath of swearing in of a Cabinet minister is very specific about counsel. In terms of the plan for the integration, this is a living document which is created with an NLESD staff, with representation from the NLESD and those parties meet frequently and regularly.

There is nothing to see here. It is all happening and the people who need to know are actually crafting it, so I'm not sure where he is coming from.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Previously I asked the Minister of Health for help because patients in my district are often bumped off medical flights, resulting in appointments and treatment for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, et cetera, being cancelled, yet recently the minister hosted a health care action update with the intent of ensuring all residents have improved access to quality health care.

I quote the minister's own release, “Reducing the number of missed appointments will also reduce wait lists and lead to better efficiencies in the health care system.”

So I ask the Minister of Health: What's being done to ensure patients in my district have access to quality health care or will they continue to be excluded from the social determinants of health?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services,

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm delighted that the Member has raised the important issue of missed appointments. There is an education program being developed by the Provincial Health Authority and the department to better inform people of the costs not only to the health system, but the financial costs of missed appointments.

More directly, Mr. Speaker, to her question, as she is aware, because we've discussed the issue, the tender for the medical flights in the Labrador region is up this year. That is being reviewed. We are in discussions with the provider to ensure that the best service possible to that region is delivered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Patients are bumped off medical flights; they have no control over the cancelled appointments. The provincial Health Accord states that access to nutritional food is a critical social determinant of health, but last week when I asked the Minister of Health will he commit his government to reverse the erosion of services to my district, such as the removal of the freight boat so people are not being harmed by malnutrition in my district, the Minister of Transportation stated it is a non-issue and I'm not having a discussion.

I'd like to hear from the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Minister of Transportation or is malnutrition a non-issue only when it comes to my district, Speaker?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did answer this question in terms – because she referenced the boat to Lewisporte. I said there is no discussion. I hoped that I answered the questioned. Obviously, I didn't. I'm having no discussion; I'm not entertaining the idea. That's the end of discussion in terms of answering that question. I hope that helps her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, a quick question, no

preamble, please.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Nothing to see here seems to be the plan. The minister stated in Estimates that amalgamation wasn't about saving money, but about getting better educational outcomes. With a transparent plan, this could work.

Will the minister identify the educational outcomes he, his department officials and Cabinet colleagues felt would benefit from amalgamation and how amalgamation would improve them?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: I will make a start, Speaker, but it will challenge me to do all that in 45 seconds.

The educational outcomes that we're looking at are increased values in the scores of graduating students in the areas of critical thinking. We excel in the areas of content knowledge, but we do not do so well as our comparators in other provinces. To get there, in short, we need to align program development and curriculum at the departmental level and at the district and school level so that they are seamless.

So those objectives that we can measure; we designed a curriculum to deliver that. By that, we will have a gold standard high school diploma where Newfoundland and Labrador students will be the best in Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I move the following private Member's resolution.

WHEREAS Memorial University's administration has shown contempt for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, their history, their sacrifices, the founding principles of the province's only university and the people's House of Assembly by refusing to continue leading the convocation in singing the province's anthem at graduation ceremonies, even while admitting the decision to stop singing the anthem should never have been made in the first place; and

WHEREAS while fully respecting the autonomy of Memorial University on academic matters, the House of Assembly can require that this ceremonial wrong be corrected by restoring the anthem to graduation ceremonies through legislation;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge government to bring forward legislation to require the “Ode to Newfoundland” and the “Ode to Labrador” to be sung at graduation ceremonies at Memorial University's convocation;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be encouraged to review and give due diligence to the proposed legislation appended to this resolution and bring forward legislation of similar effect.

The appended draft legislation follows.

There's draft legislation attached, Mr. Speaker, and I'm just going to read just the Explanatory Note.

It's a draft bill. The bill would amend the Provincial Anthem Act and the Memorial University Act.

The Provincial Anthem Act would be amended to designate both the “Ode to Newfoundland” and the “Ode to Labrador” as a provincial anthem.

The Memorial University Act would be amended to require the singing of provincial anthems at all graduation ceremonies of the Memorial University convocation.

Mr. Speaker, under

part 5,

section 3, the Memorial University Act is amended by adding immediately after the subsection (3) the following:

(4) At all graduation ceremonies of the convocation of which degrees, including honourary degrees, are granted, conferred, recognized or celebrated, the provincial anthem, as defined in the Provincial Anthem Act, shall be sung during the ceremony in recognition of the fact that Memorial University is Newfoundland and Labrador's only university, has a special obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and was established as a memorial to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who lost their lives on active service during the First World War and subsequent conflicts, from whose sacrifices Memorial University draws inspiration from the past as it helps to better build a better future for our province, our country and our world.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: This PMR will be the private Member's resolution being debated by the Opposition tomorrow afternoon in the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The closure of the Canning Bridge in Marystown has had a devastating impact on residents, fire and emergency services and the local economy.

The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure was well aware of the poor condition of the bridge, most recently documented in a bridge inspection report completed in January 2020, which confirmed the Canning Bridge was in poor condition.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately begin the process to replace the Canning Bridge.

The reason why I'm hoping I can get the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure today is to probably give an update to the House. This is something that's been going on. It was decommissioned about three or four months ago and it hasn't been in use – I guess regular use – for three or four months. So it would be nice that we can probably get the minister to stand in his spot and tell us about a timeline: If we're anywhere closer to getting this bridge completed and what does it look like.

Because it has affected the whole economy, not only businesses, but it also affects the spending patterns of the residents. Notwithstanding that, it also affects the socialization of our seniors and, in my opinion, they deserve better. We need to look out for them.

Like I said, the reason why I'm presenting this today is hopefully the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure can give us an update today on some timelines or what has been done to date or anything like that to ensure that this is going to be done in a timely fashion.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, these are the reasons for this petition:

Frank Roberts Junior High, located in Foxtrap, Conception Bay South, was built in the 1960s and currently has over 650 students attending.

The classrooms are small and overcrowded. There is no cafeteria, no ventilation, full of mould, and rats and mice have been detected throughout the school. Teachers, staff and students are experiencing health issues, which is unacceptable.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make immediate improvements while planning for a new school which has been listed on NLESD capital list for years.

Mr. Speaker, this petition here, I don't know how many copies – I'm presenting this many today. I've got a lot of copies in my office that have been delivered throughout from parents in the district. We just went through Question Period. We've watched for the last several weeks on this issue the level of defiance. The messaging is just so wrong.

I keep saying it and I spoke publicly on this and I'll say it in the House of Assembly because the minister thinks I've got a problem with my hearing, and I probably do, but I hear a lot of things crystal clear. The problem with their messaging is people want some hope. People want acknowledgement. All of those people are not wrong. All of those parents are not wrong. All those teachers are not wrong. All those students are not wrong.

I speak to them all. I've spoken to those people and to be quite frank, the minister might want to know this, I actually did homework on this for weeks before I ever decided to come out with a news release. For what reason? I didn't want to go running on inaccurate information on certain stuff. I wanted to be sure of my facts. I did a lot of homework. I did a lot of consulting on this issue. I was very comfortable when I issued the news release several weeks ago to stand with the parents and the students and the teachers to ask for this issue to be resolved.

A new school should be in the planning, but there are immediate concerns there. So while I've even gone a step further, seeing they're being defiant and dismissive, we're asking for an independent review of the school to be done, settle it there. One group is saying this and the other group is saying that. Let's put it out in the middle, separate all that. Get someone independent to go in and do it.

Why wouldn't you agree to do something like that? The only way you'd agree to not do something like that is you're afraid that you might be hiding something. That's the only thing I can come up with. I support anyone – I've got no wrong with anyone going in and doing an inspection, but let's separate the uncertainty, bring in someone independent, get them to do the inspection of the school. If that comes back, the school is deemed safe and these issues are not an issue, we're fine. But he won't even commit to that. It's getting up and calling my actions shameful. I'll never be accused of being shameful.

No Member of this House should be ashamed of standing up for the people in their district.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

Stephenville Primary school educates children from the greater Bay St. George area. Many of these children are of French-Mi'kmaq descent. The great-grandparents of these children were physically and emotionally harmed by the school system for speaking their language and embracing their culture. Our community lost the language with that generation. Today, these families still feel the trauma from these experiences.

In January 2023, the community became aware that Stephenville Primary was at risk of losing the French immersion program due to the current rigid, province-wide policy which fails to account for any cultural considerations such as those in the Bay St. George region. This threat created stress for our community and children. It illustrated that policy change is needed, as the status quo will repeat the destruction and loss of culture first caused and perpetuated by the provincial governments of the past. It is our firm hope that the present government is committed to the goals of truth and reconciliation.

The program is back at Stephenville Primary but, every year, we continue to go through a process of trying to determine where we're going to meet this rigid number. So what we need to recognize, there is a cultural thing, there is an historical thing and this needs to be corrected. It needs to be part of the core program.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I am presenting a petition to call for funding for active and public transportation. These are the reasons for the petition:

Government has proudly announced that it is spending historic amounts of money on highway repairs and expansion in this year's budget, totalling $1.4 billion over the next five years.

Rudimentary traffic analysis shows that provincial highways barely operate at 50 per cent of their traffic capacity at peak times. Inattentive driving and speeding are the primary causes of highway accidents. Widened roadways further encourage this behaviour, contributing to highway-related fatalities.

Private vehicles cost the average Canadian over $10,000 a year per vehicle, forcing struggling seniors and minimum wage workers into vehicle poverty. Diverting even a fraction of the yearly highways improvement budget into funding public and active transportation can provide reliable, predictable and daily routes to most hubs in the province.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to developing active and public transportation options in the province through legislative and budgetary means and to cease any further highway expansions without providing robust traffic studies, including factoring inter- and intra-community public transit.

What the petitioners are asking for is an acknowledgement and a redirection of funds into active transportation. We have many people who can't afford a vehicle. Now, I've heard it mentioned in the House here with regard to electric vehicles. I would argue that many people are stuck without having any vehicle, even the internal combustion engine and they do not have a dependable form of public transportation either within the city – if that could be expanded – and without. Even between the hubs.

One of the things that this petition is calling for is the expansion of public transportation between hubs. Not only within communities but between communities as well. For those who no longer have their licence, who've never owned a licence or cannot afford to own a vehicle, regardless of whether it's electric or otherwise.

I will say this; I will support, certainly, my colleague on this side who talked about the sleeping guardrails. Do you know what? Maybe we need to be doing more about making sure that our roadways are kept up to standard. But, in many ways, I think the emphasis has got be on, as well, public transportation.

What is the good of even bringing in people from other jurisdictions, other countries, who may be depending on or may be used to public transportation – and they come here and it's almost impossible to get across this province?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition and background to the petition is as follows:

WHEREAS the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board is the governing body for fish harvester certification and inshore enterprise ownership in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Professional Fish Harvesters Act (1997) was crafted and designed to address circumstances in fish harvesting that have drastically changed in today's fishing industry environment; and

WHEREAS exceptionally stringent certification criteria are seriously impeding intergenerational succession of commercial fishing licences and enterprises, contributing to a crisis of workforce entrance into the inshore harvesting sector; and

WHEREAS the cost of commercial fishing licences are financially out of reach for most accredited harvesters through traditional lenders such as banks; and

WHEREAS the most accessible lenders are often the very same fish processing companies and buyers who purchase a harvester's catch and alternate lending institutions would be more favourable; and

WHEREAS fish harvester succession and enterprise ownership are intrinsically linked to coastal and rural sustainability, and any break in that chain threatens the rural way of life;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to undertake province-wide consultations on the impediments to becoming an inshore enterprise owner, meetings to coincide with a review of the Professional Fish Harvesters Act (1997).

Mr. Speaker, I have several people that have signed this petition that I was asked to present. People from Catalina, Elliston, Bunyan's Cove, Champney's West, Bonavista, St. John's, Goulds, Petty Harbour, all over the place basically, Codroy, so from all over the Island. I was contacted and asked if I would present this on their behalf.

Now interestingly enough, it was only a couple of weeks ago I actually had a meeting with the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. At the time when I met with them – and I believe my colleague from Bonavista had read a similar if not the same petition in this House of Assembly, which is what prompted them to meet. Interestingly enough, when I was speaking to them, I had these on the way in and I didn't even know they were coming in. So I would have told them but I didn't even know.

At the end of the day, they raised some concerns as well that they have. They're trying to protect our fishing industry as well, which is very important to all of our province, particularly the rural parts. They don't want to have situations – and we've heard of these in the past where some dentist from Nova Scotia ends up with –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is actually named: Renewed call to reinstate the marine shipping service between the Island portion of our province and our Northern Labrador communities.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to return the direct marine shipping service between the Island portion of our province and to our Northern Labrador communities. Our Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated with no road access and marine transportation services are limited to five summer months on average.

Since the 2019 cancellation of this direct marine freight service from the island portion of our province to our communities residents are witnessing exorbitant price increases of basic needs, impacting overall quality of life.

We are already paying exorbitant prices but the additional trucking has directly impacted prices of food, building materials, vehicles including trucks and off-road vehicles, household goods and many essential services for our communities. It has also resulted in a lot of important supplies not being available in our communities anymore.

Speaker, this is a brand new petition. This is a renewed petition and the signatures on here are dated May 19, actually just this past week. Most of the signatures are from Nain. Why am I talking about Nain is because a glass jar, Speaker, no bigger than this glass actually costs $8.98 for jam. For peanut butter, $9.59. That's the cost of food. I showed people the picture of pork chops: $28 for four fatty pork chops. How can people afford to feed their families? But most importantly, what I say to people is, there are people in our communities that have good-paying jobs and they're struggling with the price of food.

One of the things we are judged on, as a society, as government, as elected officials, we are judged on how we treat our most vulnerable. I have to tell you in our Northern Labrador communities that don't have road access we basically are forced to pay these exorbitant prices. Our most vulnerable are being harmed and there's another layer on top of low income and people on income support; there are a lot of them in my district, in my communities that have been harmed by intergenerational trauma from the forced resettlement of our communities and also residential schools.

Everybody wants to talk about it, but no one wants to do anything about it. The Minister of Transportation said he's not going to reopen it but there are no other options. In actual fact, how can our families survive when they have to pay these exorbitant prices? I'm not going to even talk about other things like the price of a boat and motor, the price of a snowmobile, building materials so you can repair and maintain your house. Paint – you can't get paint in my district anymore.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move that this House now recess for 15 minutes.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 2:50 p.m.

Recess

SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 8.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, that

An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act, Bill 34, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34,

An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act.” (Bill 34)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to speak to amendments to the Public Utilities Act as part of Bill 34. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology will certainly get a chance to some amendments as well that are being proposed under the Electrical Power Control Act.

Back in November 2021, our government announced a review of the Public Utilities Act as recommended by Justice Richard LeBlanc in his report Muskrat Falls: A Misguided Project .

The Public Utilities Act was adopted in 1989. It's been amended on a number of occasions with significant amendments occurring in 1998 and 2018. The most recent amendments were adopted to support a new electrical system operator for the province and establish the transmission tariff to be applied when moving electricity through the province.

The Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, or PUB, is established by the Public Utilities Act. The PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and operates primarily under the authority of the Public Utilities Act.

Given the broad mandate of the PUB, we subsequently announced on May 10, 2022, a review was being conducted of all public utilities legislation. This review was undertaken by an internal project team consisting of officials from the Department of Justice and Public Safety, with participation and support from the Departments of Digital Government and Service NL, Industry, Energy and Technology, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

Given the technical nature of the subject matter, the project team conducted targeted stakeholder engagement that included the PUB, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland Power, the Consumer Advocate, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, Braya, Vale, Labrador Interconnected Group, Innu Nation and NunatuKavut Community Council. The stakeholders identified their specific issues which were analyzed by the project team as part of its jurisdictional scan.

I do want to take the time to thank the project team and all those that participated in the review of their work in ensuring public utilities legislation in this province is effective and based on best practices like we see throughout the country.

Overall, the review showed that provincial legislation is generally in line with other jurisdictions. However, we are amending the Public Utilities Act to update the legislation in certain areas. There are a number of amendments related to board composition and tenure. If passed, the PUB would now have no less than four members and no more than six members. This amendment is more in line with other jurisdictions that have a similar mandate to our PUB.

We are also proposing to amend the terms of commissioners from 10 years to a seven-year first term. with up to two five-year reappointments. This will not affect current commissioners.

To allow for project continuity, the amendments before the House would also permit commissioners to complete a project that extends beyond their term. This, too, is in line with other jurisdictions, namely New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

There are also changes to allow for the appointment of temporary commissioners in consultation with the chair of the PUB and approval by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. This will allow the appointment of temporary commissioners, should the PUB require additional help for short periods of time for a specific matter. There is a limitation on temporary appointments, six months in any two-year period.

To help ease the regulatory burden for utilities, there are amendments to increase the monetary threshold of PUB approval on capital projects or leases. As the act currently reads, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power have to get PUB approval for capital projects of $50,000 or more and for yearly leases of $5,000 or more. These dollar figures have not changed since at least 1978. We are suggesting increasing these thresholds to $750,000 for capital projects and $750,000 for the lifetime of leases. Doing so will enable the PUB and utilities to focus resources on larger projects while still allowing for appropriate oversight.

The new amounts are more reflective of current construction and lease costs. Just for comparison, Nova Scotia has a $1-million threshold, New Brunswick has $50 million thresholds and British Columbia's thresholds are between $20 million and $100 million depending on the utility and the type of project. We are also suggesting threshold amounts be established in LGIC regulations rather than legislation.

Another change for utilities would clarify that in addition to seeking PUB approval to not serve a customer, the utility can apply to the PUB for approval not to serve a group of customers. Currently the utility companies have to apply on a customer-by-customer basis which is not efficient. The changes would allow one application before the PUB who would then decide if the application is in the public interest.

There are also some administrative changes as well. To provide for transparency to stakeholders, we are looking to clarify that exemption orders be gazetted and published as regulations. There are amendments to remove water and sewer from the mandate of the PUB, given they have not historically regulated water and sewer because it is covered by the Municipalities Act, City of Mount Pearl Act , City of St. John's Act and the City of Corner Brook Act .

Section 120 updates the regulatory-making authority to capital budget thresholds. Other amendments will, of course, incorporate gender-neutral language and update references to the Supreme Court and statutory reference. I just want to say that these amendments will ensure the PUB can operate effectively to achieve its objects in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I sit down, Speaker, myself and the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology had some questions from the media today. I just want to be clear about one of the amendments that had been proposed. It talks about, in

section 5.1 of the Electrical Power Control Act, proposing and addition that would allow LGIC to direct the Public Utilities Board to hold an in-person hearing. Just for clarity, this request was made by the Consumer Advocate. He's been very public about the need in certain situations to have an in-person hearing.

Everything that is before the Public Utilities Board, all hearings, they are public. Nothing is ever hidden; nothing's behind closed doors. But for the most part a lot of the documents are put online; people can make their written submissions, members of the public, the Consumer Advocate, the utilities, and the commissioners have the chance, of course, to review it, ask further questions and go back and forth. But there are not always in-person hearings. The Consumer Advocate, for lack of a better word, advocated for a more open and transparent process and requested that this be added to the amendments when our review is being done and that's what the project team came back with.

There's no thought process or no inclination or no suggestion that LGIC ordered that a hearing not take place. It is only the ability to direct the PUB to have an in-person hearing when LGIC feels it's in the public interest and appropriate to do so. I just want to be clear of that. It's not to hinder or be less transparent; it's a request by the Consumer Advocate which we think is a good one to make the PUB open and transparent when necessary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's an honour again to stand in this House as we debate legislation here and make changes to legislation that better fits the programs and services and the expenditures of the administration of any service that's being provided. Here, as the minister had noted, we're debating now Bill 34,

An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act.

As you know, there has been a lot of discussion, particularly the last number of years, about the Public Utilities Board and the Electrical Power Control Act itself. There have been discussions and the advocate for a number of years has been outlining some of the concerns that they've had relevant to how the PUB, the Public Utilities Board, and how the Electrical Power Control Act could be improved.

Obviously, with the Muskrat hearings itself and the review and the detailed discussion and the presented information there, more detail was put forward as to the necessity here for the Electrical Power Control Act to be changed and for the roles and responsibilities of the PUB, in a number of cases, clarifying what their responsibilities are. More importantly, what their abilities are to ensure that the public information is put out publicly and that decisions are made relevant to the power grids and providing power and the costing of power is done in the most open and transparent manner and a most efficient manner to provide services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So there are a number of changes that are taking place within this piece of legislation. The minister alluded to a number of them and I'll just take you through some of them again so people will understand what's being changed. While it's maybe not a big encompassing part of it, there are parts of it here that we have, not necessarily concerns, but that we would want better clarification so we can pass that information on to the general public here when it comes to them understanding what's happening around this process here.

We've had a lot of debate over the last number of years about additional power being able to be put on the grid, changing legislation relevant to that and how applications are put in to the PUB for increases as part of that; what environmental footprint or policies should be implemented to ensure that we're as environmentally friendly in any development around hydroelectric power or any other type of power grid that may be necessary to provide power for our people in this province or for our industries as part of that or for export as part of that process.

So there are a number of things here. First and foremost is expand the power policy of the province. Keeping in mind, we've been touting for the last number of years, perhaps for the last decade, the importance and the ability and the assets that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only to serve our own needs but to serve the needs of our Atlantic provinces, our sister provinces, but also nationally and internationally; doing it in a green manner; doing it in a manner that financially is beneficial to us; and doing it in a manner that we can now offer industry green, affordable, accessible, reliable energy.

To do that, you've got to have an oversight process here that controls that and sets the policies and parameters for any industry or any oversight agency here. That's what this piece of legislation sets out to do. It sets out to improve and build upon and modernize

an act that's been in play now for three decades in Newfoundland and Labrador and make it more relevant to exactly what has been identified as some challenges around access to hydroelectric power, access to the increased costing or access to the environmental assessment on what needs to be done there. So to do that, you have to have the piece of legislation that's all encompassing here.

Obviously, if you change one component or one

section of

an act, it has an effect, a ripple effect, on a number of other ones that you have to modernize. It could be just around dates, it could be around the parameters and timelines. It could be around the parameters on the access to that piece of information or it could be based on the principle of now we're changing how business is done within any asset-oriented development as part of this process.

I will again admit the Muskrat Falls inquiry opened up a lot of eyes around what should be necessary, putting in safeguards and mechanisms and checks and balances to ensure that whatever we do, and the assets that are being used in Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to be beneficial to the people here. That, at the end of the day, everything is covered off so that the general public could look at a piece of legislation, look at the act, and know exactly if the industry itself is doing what it's supposed to do; if we're getting the best return on the investment.

More importantly, in a lot of cases here, particularly around the PUB, ensuring that the rates that are charged and the process used in determining that are in line with exactly what was discussed in the House of Assembly and what was said and discussed within the inquiry itself around cost overruns and the taxpayers having to incur a number of those costs and processes there.

We're talking about an expanded power of policy of Newfoundland and Labrador, that's what we'll do with this whole piece of legislation and changes. The legislation prior to that, I've gone through it. A fairly in-depth piece of legislation and fairly consuming for the time and protection at the time, but over the last 10 years we've seen our priorities around hydroelectric power and we've seen some of the challenges we're faced.

We're seen some of the new things, the nuances that we've learned about what we weren't ready for, or it didn't exist prior to that and the advocate has been very diligently outlining challenges that they've identified over the last period of time by having some discussions around that.

So having the department itself, the Department of Justice and Public Safety, announce the review of the Public Utilities Board is something that we welcome. Obviously, we promote it as much as possible and ask those relevant to this process to be engaged in it and share their information.

The review process took place. What this is now doing is a review of the whole process as it comes back to the House of Assembly in changes to legislation here. So we're also going to look at some of things here that would be around exemption orders under the act in subsequent legislation. There has to be some ability to maneuver as times change, needs change, the markets change and the demands change itself. So there is reference in that here about how we would do that.

Some simple things that are housekeeping here so people would know like the reference to Trial Division will now be changed to the Supreme Court. We know in Newfoundland and Labrador, Supreme Court is the ultimate decision-maker. So at the end of the day, if there's a reference to a decision being made there, we know that it's going to be open, public and transparent at that level. We know whatever, at the end of the day, decision made is binding for the people of this province and for any entity that may be a partner in this piece of legislation.

Some of it is simple: removing references to services related to water and sewage from the definition of public utilities and from other provisions of the act. It's just streamlining and cleaning up exactly what the responsibilities of this piece of legislation would be as part of those processes.

There's an added definition for minister and temporary commissioner. That was some of the clarification that we had some concerns around, about exactly outlining what would be the roles and responsibility of the minister in this situation and the temporary commissioner, as part of this process.

As we get into it, I'll take it through some of the changes that have taken place here and the relevance and the impact that they may have as part of that and the clarification that we will want when we get in Committee so there's no misinterpretation of the definition or understanding as to what this act is going to do in its endeavours to improve the public utilities operations and the Electrical Power Control Actas we talk around that.

Clarifying some of the exemption orders under the act and subsequent legislation: I talked about that because there are some challenges around what would be exempt when we get into this process. We'll take you through some of those challenges that we may have or some of those questions that we're going to have.

Also, increase the maximum number of full-time commissioners as part of this process: For a number of years, there's been a debate as to the value, at times, of the Public Utilities Board because of not sharing all information out there, how the decision-making process is being made and the longevity for commissioners to be there. Does it become stale when people are there for periods of time as part of this process?

So there are some changes here that we'll outline that would be, we feel, beneficial to the people of the province because it gives a new opportunity for people to share the information they have and to use the energies they have to do it. It shortens the period of time when new members can become commissioners and bring their thoughts, their work experiences and their views on to how things should be changed.

Also, the ability for appointments in the process here is changed somewhat because there has been some contentious issues around if commissioners leave, who can appoint, what time frames and for how long do they stay then as commissioners as part of that. So that has been clarified a little bit more there.

And allow the commissioners whose term expired to continue unfinished matters before they leave. That is something I see the value of because, at the end of the day, a commissioner who has been there for a period of time, has taken on a specific project, is continuing to move that in the right direction and has a wealth of knowledge and all of a sudden now because their term is up that project now comes to a halt and somebody new coming in who is not familiar with it, doesn't understand the nuances, the partners involved, or how you move it to the next level.

Now we start over again; we've wasted a lot of time, a lot of energy and particularly a lot of the resources that could have been moving this in the right direction to address whatever the issue is.

There is some definition there around how a commissioner can continue and for what time frames as part of that. So that in itself becomes beneficial. One of them is a new process here, the temporary appointments of commissioners. If we do have commissioners who leave for whatever reason then obviously you can't have too many vacancies because you got to have this open dialogue and discussion and you got to have a number of individuals making decisions on what is in the best interest of the Public Utilities Board and the Electrical Power Control Act.

So there are some things there that we're going to talk about here in the next period of time that I think would be beneficial to improving some of the things here. Some of the things that we have here, like in the current act here, the description here and the discussion, what's being proposed now that will change: would result in power being delivered to the consumers in the province at the lowest possible cost, consistent with reliable service.”

So this is about ensuring that it is written in text that the PUB and the act must adhere to following the process of finding affordable ways to keep the pricing down when it comes to our hydroelectric utilities or anything else relevant to that in a reliable service.

That has been the premise of any hydroelectric power that has been developed here. It is on three main key points. One, that it is a reliable source that we have here; so we're not reliant on some outside entity or we don't have challenges in times that are not conducive to people's health, safety and industry developing, like we did with DarkNL. I mean, that was an eye opener about ensuring that we had a grid that will be reliable, that it can be turned on in very quick manner and that even if there are some disruptions that they would be minimal and have minimal impact on people's lives.

We saw in DarkNL there was a challenge because the grid itself wasn't prepared. There wasn't preplanning. They didn't have a mechanism in play and they didn't, for all intents and purposes, have the resource that was necessary at the time to do it. That's why there was movements put forward about putting something in place that would be more reliable.

I know there's still some discussion around if Muskrat Falls will be able to do that and subsequent hydroelectric powers. I know Bay d'Espoir has been upgraded and there's a major investment now that's taking place to upgrade that. Conversations about how long Holyrood would exist based on its environmental hazards as part of that process. So the discussion from the process here is about finding the reliability and affordability.

It's a good change in the wording here because I think this represents what people have come to learn is necessary if we are to move forward on having hydroelectric energy as one of our key components for driving industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and keeping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians safe and warm, but also in providing a revenue generating stream for this province and supplying clean energy for other provinces here that also helps the environment. So that's one part of a component there on the discussion that we'll have. We welcome the changes in that because it makes a commitment that this is indeed what needs to be done.

Questions here, though, or discussions around where the public utilities engage in activities that is in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as a matter of public convenience or general policy are in the best interest of the province to extend and engage in those activities. So, again, there has to be an acceptance of oversight. To not only put something in writing, but have a mechanism that it has to be adhered to, that the checks and balances have to be in play here.

So there are some mechanisms in here that would strengthen the responsibility of the PUB and the act itself to be followed and to achieve the goals that are set out in the act which is obviously from an environmental point of view, a financial point of view and from a full-fledged economic point of view from the province from a bigger picture as part of this process that's there. So there are some of the things that we talked about there.

Issues around the composition of the board and the changes on that, we welcome the fact where things are right now. We do look at some of the things: temporary commissioners, the process for appointment there and what that will mean, who gets to make the appointments and we know we talked about the chair being able to make those appointments, but it has to be clearly spelled out under what circumstances.

This got to be seen as transparency, accountability and openness. It got to be based on the principle. It can't be just taking care of your friends; it can't be because you owe a favour to somebody because at those points it's at the expense of the taxpayers. It's also whether or not you have somebody who has the skill set to sit on that board, to be able to ensure that the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are put as the primary objective as part of those processes.

So there are a number of things there, some of the changes here about not less than or more than six full-time commissioners. There has still been some debate about the number of commissioners that are necessary for discussion, for hearings, for decision-making, very important as part of it when we look at the process to ensure that that works there.

The appointment timelines, and there was some debate here – the norm has been commissioners 10 years versus a seven-year appointment to hold office during that process. Again, we see the value of that based on the principle of eventually people will have either exhausted their energy or their interest or their views on what needs to be done. Changing it up in an earlier process, to us, it adds new energy to it, adds a new perspective and would move it in the right direction. There are a number of things relevant to that that would be in the best interest of what's happening here.

The chairperson may appoint one or more persons approved by the minister as temporary commissioners. So again, our discussion around that is, what criteria will the minister be using to recommend to the chairperson what would happen there? There's a contentious issue here around “may,” not “may” versus “shall,” and that's always an open dialogue there on who has the real authority and is it based on choosing who's best to do it or it's based on being directed to select somebody. So we'll have some questions in there about the process that would be used when a minister puts forward a name.

Will they be using the selection process within the confines of government? Will it be an appointed process within a line department? Will it be Cabinet that makes a decision? Will it be the Premier that makes that full decision? So these are things that we'll ask for clarification when we get into Committee, as part of that process.

There are a number of other things here that we have some questions about that we'll get clarified here and part of it is around the cost of construction or purchase in the excess of an amount prescribed in the regulations. So again, we talk about checks and balances. They have to be very important for any piece of legislation to change and for accountability, and I'm not one that's going to skirt around it, particularly around hydroelectric because we did see what happened when there wasn't enough checks and balances put in play when Muskrat Falls was being built as part of that process.

The Public Utilities Board involvement in that was minimal at the time. The act itself didn't give them the power or influence to be able to do it and we had to go to a public inquiry.

So if we're doing this in advance, we're being proactive and we're thinking ahead and planning ahead, we should have mechanisms in play and we should have legislation already drafted in advance that would answer all those questions or those concerns before they could even happen as part of that. So there's value in what's going to be here about how the regulations are. So the old devil is in the detail when it comes to regulations and understanding what is going to be put in play and the mechanism that will be implemented and, more importantly, monitored over a period of time.

The cost of lease over the expected life of the lease is in excess of the amount prescribed in the regulations. Again, this is about accountability and the financial costing for any project or any costing to any improvement to what already exists in our province right now as we start developing the hydroelectric power. What influence this may or may not have when it comes to negotiations on Churchill Falls right now, I'm not quite sure, because, to me, everything has an effect.

If you're going to negotiate the value of something, you obviously got to know – if I'm a businessperson, I've got to know what regulatory responsibilities I have to follow, what are the costings relevant to that and what are the checks and balances that are part and parcel and what has to be done?

So there are a number of things that have changed here. For the most part, they are beneficial to the people of the province. It was something that needed to be updated as part of it. Again, when you've got an advocate who represents the people of the province, who's calling for a number of changes that would be relevant to improving a piece of legislation, it's hard to dismiss that. When you have a Chief Justice who does a review and says there are challenges here, if we don't address them now, the same problems we had previously will continue to exist.

So there are a number of changes in this piece of legislation here that we accept and see the value. There are a number that we're going to have some questions. I'm very hopeful and optimistic that the minister and his staff can answer them and say under a regulatory process this would be the process that will be used as part of that.

Once we're reassured that this is in the right place, then I think this could be a benefit to moving hydroelectric power in the right direction. The PUB's responsibility is to ensure clean energy, affordable energy and engage energy and being able to have the ability to open up other avenues to putting more power on the power grid itself and ensuring we have reliable power in this province for domestic use and for export to generate the revenue.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I'll take my seat and let my colleagues also get up and speak to some of the issues they may have relevant to this.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread here right now. Okay. Here we go.

With regard to this Power Control Act, I look at it; it's about protecting the public. It's about learning from the past. It's about, in many ways, gazing into a crystal ball and trying to anticipate future problems and to safeguard against them.

The key word I have heard here, certainly, is transparency, making sure that all projects that are being approved, they are in the best interest of the province and of the people who may be paying for those projects, indirectly or directly.

Now, in November 2021, when this was announced, a review of the Public Utilities Act , it was one of the recommendations of Justice Richard LeBlanc had made in his report on Muskrat Falls. In many ways, I was not in the House for this debate, but I do remember a lot of debate was centred around nationalism. It was about a lot of flag waving and I think whatever the reasons, without going into assigning blame one way or the other, the fact is that we probably needed a deeper dive and a more objective analysis of what we were getting into and how to approach it.

So for that reason, I certainly would support

an act which tries to strengthen the Public Utilities Board, as such, and to eliminate those influences.

The review itself covered many acts. It had input from a variety of departments, also a number of targeted stakeholder engagements. No doubt about it, there was an awful lot of information and an awful lot of advice given. The legislation reflects, certainly, the input from that review and also jurisdictional scan to adopt the best practices used in the provinces when managing comparable bodies to the PUB and we can, certainly, see how that jurisdictional scan influenced some of the changes that were made.

One thing that's positive is the province to include the need for the Public Utilities Board to consider environmental responsibility when considering projects put before it for approval. There is a tendency, sometimes, to think that, well, you know, there's no cost to what we do to the environment, whether we dump something here or pollute this. But it does have a cost, certainly, in terms of the environment itself, to future generations and to the public who may very well be responsible for cleaning it up. We've had plenty of examples of that.

We're glad to see the changes made, but, originally, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could direct the PUB as to whether they need to hold a hearing on a matter or not. We're glad to see that one of the amendments we were planning to bring forward, but will not be necessary now, is basically to remove the language whether or not a hearing shall be held now that it will be to hold a hearing.

That's a positive. If anything else, it's about, again, I've heard the Minister of Justice speak to this, about the need for transparency and about making the PUB open and transparent when necessary. Whether or not we're dealing with this administration or a future administration, that's the crystal ball gazing. We're trying to make sure that down the road we are putting the protections in place to make sure that transparency is foremost. That is a positive.

Now, it does say that the water and sewage has been removed from the definition of a public utility. Certainly, the minister can correct me if I'm wrong on this. It's a concern, I guess, where that would be municipal, but there are areas of the province that are not under any municipal control.

I often think when we talk about water resources, about industrial use of water resources, I look at Gisborne Lake many, many years ago about more or less the selling off of that asset for basically bottling water and so on and so forth, but it was a resource that belonged to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's not a major concern because I'm assuming there are safeguards in place to begin with, but, at the same time, I often wonder if the PUB would be best to consider those issues as well.

Increasing the maximum number of full-time commissioners that may be appointed – a positive – moving from four to six. I think it's always a question as to what is the right size for a committee, a commission, a board of directors. But certainly four, I would argue, is limiting; six is getting towards where you can actually have that expertise and still have decisions made.

Decreasing the term length for full-time commissioners and allow for their reappointment for a maximum of two terms. Certainly, again, if we look at a jurisdictional scan, what Newfoundland and Labrador had was one of the longest initial terms. But at the same time, this change is bringing it more in line with what other jurisdictions have but still allowing for the reappointment, if necessary, for two terms of five years. I think that acknowledges the fact that it can be often difficult to find people to serve.

The other thing, I guess, the goal in changing the term length was to allow new members with different experience to come to the board while simultaneously ensuring that institutional knowledge would not be lost. It is always a challenge in any board of directors or any committee or any group.

I will say this, and I'm assuming this will be part of it, that there will be some staggering of turnover so you're not losing the entire expertise in one go. It's always worthwhile to have those people who've had the experience, Speaker, to be there and to bring in the new perspectives so that at least we don't lose that institutional knowledge.

It's to create efficiencies in streamlining the work of the PUB, and certainly we would consider that to be important. To create the office a temporary commissioner – we will bring forward an amendment on this. They are to be selected through consultation between the chair of the PUB and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. They are to serve for a term of up to six months. They can only be reappointed once in a two-year period, and the goal of this amendment is to allow for those with specialized knowledge or experience to serve on the board and inform its deliberations.

I guess, at some point in the future, we don't know what future administrations would do and how they would interpret it but if anything can be learned is that if it's not ironclad in many ways as we can make it, it is open for

interpretation.

The fact is that we go back to the call for transparency to make the PUB open and transparent. The fact that we're now engaging in a process through consultation between the chair and the PUB and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to come up with, I guess, it sounds like a list of potential candidates that the minister would approve.

I go to when I was NLTA president and we were trying to set up the board of directors for the investment corporation with the pensions. I was asked would I nominate a person to serve on the board. I said: I can't do that if I'm going to be the one that's going to be making the final decision. But what we will do is we'll set up an independent committee within the organization. We looked outside and they will make the recommendations. I will have no discussion with that. They will make the recommendations and as president, I would have the final word and say on who is recommended.

But I think in many ways here, what I'm looking at is this concern then that there's this consultation between the PUB chair, the Minister of Justice and then the Minister of Justice would make that final decision. In many ways, I think having that extra step if they're needed of having an independent appointment commission either do up a pool of people, depending on the project that they would choose from, at least that would increase that or maintain that arm's length and transparent aspect of it.

As well, it has to do with the powers because once these temporary commissioners apply, they all have full voting power. In many ways, maybe their roles should be strictly for the consultation and discussion, not necessarily voting on whether the project should proceed or not.

Allow for the construction, purchase and lease of public utility that require approval of the board be set in regulations. Currently the limit is at $50,000; the lease is $5,000 which they must deliberate on. If anything else, cost has gone up so the PUB has found itself preoccupied with small projects that are tying up their time when their attention could be better directed toward more important – I guess not important, but more substantial projects that have a significant potential, a significant impact and/or benefit to the province. So this would certainly allow that regulation to make that change and to account for inflation.

The other, I guess if anything, efficiency is that it may relieve the public utility of a requirement to supply electrical power to one customer or a group of customers. So the change here is that the legislation that's currently written has been interpreted meaning that the PUB must consider all requests from customers individually, even when multiple people are applying to service in the same area. The new wording would allow the PUB to consider those requests for applications as a collective.

So definitely we can see the improvements. We certainly take the minister to heart when he speaks of the transparency, of a need to make the PUB open and transparent, especially if it comes down to, Speaker, about restoring and/or maintaining public trust on any major project or resource development that we're facing, it would be important to have an independent body look at that and to examine and to at least reassure the people that those in a position of power, whether we're on the government side or on the Opposition, are making the best decision for the people of this province and, at the same time, avoiding the pitfalls that can saddle our province with debt for generations to come.

So with this, I will take my leave and when we get into Committee I'll bring forth our amendments, as required.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I'll be supporting Bill 34. I guess everyone will. I'm not going to get into every clause. I think other speakers have talked about a lot of the changes. A lot of it is certainly what you might refer to as housekeeping but there are also some substantive changes here as well. I think one important thing with this change is that it was a recommendation, as one of my colleagues spoke about, of Justice LeBlanc as part of the Muskrat Falls inquiry that there would be a review of this legislation.

So any time I think we can make the process more open and transparent, and put safeguards in place to protect ratepayers and ultimately the taxpayer as well, then I think that's a good thing and we should endorse that.

I think it is important to note, though, that like any legislation, this all sounds good here today and I'm sure the intent is good and the spirit of this is good. I think it's important to note and I was there and part of it at the time, talked about it, you know. There was legislation in place when Muskrat Falls got put through as well. There was legislation that was in place that got changed and, perhaps, manipulated, people would say and everything else.

So just because we have these changes here in writing doesn't mean that if a project comes along next year or two years or five years from now and an administration of the day wants to get that project through, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't have the ability to come in here and change this act, change other acts or manipulate legislation, find loopholes to get done what they want to get done for whatever purposes.

I think if there is one thing that I learned, certainly from the past and continue to learn here, is that legislation is good in principle, but the government of the day, whoever that government might be, they still always have that majority and they have that ability to come in and change legislation or take their own

interpretation of legislation or twist legislation or find loopholes in legislation to do what they want to do.

We've seen examples of that over the years during my time, I'm sure we've seen it before my time and I suspect we will see it in the future. It is important to note that while this is a good thing, it is not necessarily going to be the be all and end all that is going to guarantee the protection of consumers and taxpayers and ratepayers.

One of the things that is in here that is a good thing, that is in the Explanatory Notes and it talks about “the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to direct the public utilities board to hold an in-person hearing in relation to a matter before the public utilities board ….” So it allows the minister, basically, to order the Public Utilities Board to have a public hearing on a particular matter. I'm assuming, I think it might have been mentioned by the Minister of Justice, that would probably be on the advice of the Consumer Advocate, as an example.

I would hope that if the Consumer Advocate felt the need to have a public hearing on something – because it doesn't say the Consumer Advocate can order this, it just say the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, it allows him or her to do it. It doesn't say they have to do it. So I would certainly hope that the intent here would be that if the Consumer Advocate felt there was a need for an in-person public hearing on a particular matter, that the intent here is that the minister – unless there was some reason that I can't really think of off the top of my head, some extraordinary circumstance that he wouldn't do it – he or she would indeed hold that hearing.

I would like to see more certainty, which is not really there, and we can only take the government's word on it. Again, not this government because it could be a new government in two years' time and five years' time and 10 years' time.

I know we've seen circumstances, and I have heard the Consumer Advocate and I've shared his concern, where, for example, you would have say Newfoundland Power looking for increases to rates to cover these big capital expenditures.

It was always the view of the Consumer Advocate, and I would agree with him, that when Newfoundland Power, as an example, are coming in and they're saying we want to do this big overhaul of our system or replace this or replace that, or upgrade this or upgrade that, the question comes into play, especially where it's ratepayers that have to pay for it: When you're upgrading, are you going with the standard model – I'm just using this as an example now – or are we going with the Cadillac model here? Because maybe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador don't need the Cadillac model.

So you want to spend $20 million, maybe we can do it for $5 million. Maybe we don't need an upgrade now. Maybe we can get another 10 years out of what we already have; we don't need to replace this. You're saying you'd like to replace it, but do you really need to replace it? There might be 10 more good years in that before you need to replace it, we don't need to be spending.

It's okay for Newfoundland Power because if they're just going to charge it all back to the ratepayer, then it doesn't matter to them. They can go with the Cadillac everything all the time and say we need this, we need that, we need something else; go with the best of the best at all times and maybe overbuild or have something that we really don't need, but what the heck, let's go for the best, ratepayers are on the hook, they're going to pay for it anyway, it don't matter to us.

So having that ability, which currently we don't have, because we had that circumstance occur, I think last year or the year before. I can remember Mr. Browne there in the media, where, I think it was, Newfoundland Power put in an application for a rate increase to upgrade their systems and Mr. Browne said there should be public hearings on this. The Public Utilities Board said, no, we're not going to hold them. I think they just approved whatever it was they were asking for.

We also had a situation – I can recall this one well; this is three or four years ago ؘ– where Newfoundland Power, they were getting, I think, a 9.5 per cent return on investment and that wasn't good enough for the shareholders. They wanted a 10.5 per cent return on investment.

Now, that's not our costs are going up, that's not like a case of cost recovery: well, our costs went up, we need to charge more to recover our costs. No, that is we're making a 9.5 per cent profit, we want to make 10.5 per cent profit. They tried to put in that application. Thankfully, there was a group of citizens who kicked up an awful racket and had demonstrations outside the PUB and at Newfoundland Power at the time. I can remember I had a colourful exchange, I will say, with the late Andy Wells, the mayor of St. John's. We remember that one; that was a bit of a hoot where I was outside the PUB.

But at the end of the day, Newfoundland Power withdrew their application. But I'm pretty sure that application has gone back in again now, or it went back in not that long ago, a few months ago. I stand to be corrected, but I think they did, where now they said let's try again to up, not recover our costs and maintain our profit margins, we want more profit margins. Next year, they're going to say well, now we want 11 per cent, 12 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent.

I'd love to see something in the legislation, to be honest with you, that says here's a ceiling. I could be wrong, I've been wrong lots of times, but I think there may be some provinces that actually have it in their legislation around what kind of – certainly in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I think we have it there or some places of how much of a profit you're allowed to make. I think we limit the profit on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but Newfoundland Power, I think the sky's the limit if the PUB is willing to keep granting increases.

If we want to do something to protect the public in this, those are the kind of things we should be looking at. We should be looking at things like Newfoundland Power, when they're putting in these applications to increase profit margins, maybe the legislation is to say, no, b'y, 9 per cent or whatever it is, that's a fair return on investment. You aren't getting any more. You can maintain your 9 per cent, you can put in for increases when your capital costs go up and your operational costs go up to maintain your 9 per cent, but, buddy, you are not getting any higher.

It's not going any higher on the backs of ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be something that we should be looking at and having legislated. In my view, at least it's worth looking at.

The other thing is people need to realize – I think we all do here in this House of Assembly – that, at the end of the day, we can have an open and transparent process, which is good when it comes to things like gasoline rates. I think there were some changes made in that. But at the end of the day, we can't control world markets and the formulas are the formulas.

We can put it all online, we can do whatever we like to make the process more open and transparent, but when it comes to world commodity prices and things like that, supply and demand and all the other costs associated say to gas prices, we can't come in this House of Assembly and simply say to Irving Oil, we're going to set the price of gas or we're going to cut the price of gas prices in half. We simply cannot do that.

The only flexibility we have in this House is when it comes to the gas tax and to the horrible carbon tax. We can have some control there, but when it comes to the rest of it, we really can't. I had some residents in the past say you need to get that House of Assembly and cut those gas prices. But you try to explain to people it's a commodity on the world market and, really, all we can control is taxation. At the end of the day, we really can't control that commodity. With supply and demand, that's just the way it is unfortunately.

But, again, I will just end by saying that there are some positive changes here to make things a little more open, transparent, put more checks and balances in place.

I'm sure everybody here today on both sides of the House have the best of intentions in mind in passing this, but again, park it back to the past, put all the legislation you want in place, it will still ultimately be up to the government of the day, not necessarily this administration but the government of the day when these projects come along, whether we're going to be looking at Gull Island at some point in time – lots of speculation that Gull Island could be in the hopper at some point in time and certainly we know with all these big hydrogen projects and so on that are going to be considered, it's great to have these protections in legislation, it's great to have the PUB more open and transparent, but ultimately the government of the day still has that ability to change legislation, manipulate legislation, interpret legislation a certain way, utilize regulations a certain way.

So obviously, we would hope the government of the day would be doing things in the best interest of the people and that's why we need people on the Opposition side of the House to be sort of teasing through those things as they happen and holding government accountable.

With that said, the legislation we have before us today is not a bad piece of legislation. It's a step in the right direction and I'll support it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I won't stand for a long time, but any time I do stand in the House of Assembly and I get to speak on behalf of Stephenville - Port au Port District is always an honour. Any time we bring legislation to this House of Assembly to be debated, discussed and amended is also very important. Because while the agenda of the House – and most people watch the House for Question Period; I would argue there are other listeners and there's a lot of important business that goes on in the House of Assembly besides Question Period. One of these is exactly what we're doing now, talking about amendments to an important piece of legislation.

Whether you're a listener or a watcher in the District of Stephenville - Port au Port or in my colleague's District of Bonavista, where he has frequent flyers who watch an awful lot, what's important to them and what's important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we sit here and talk about legislation, is one question and that's simply: How does this legislation impact the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? What does it mean for them?

That's why it's so important when we stand up and talk about legislation that we never forget that's who we're actually doing this for. How do we improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? What type of impact will this legislation have on their lives? We've had legislation, obviously, that's had significant impact on them from a financial perspective; in other words, when it comes to some of the budget discussions.

But in this particular case, this is another opportunity to make changes to an organization like the Public Utilities Board that was first brought in by statute back in 1949, so it's been around for 74 years. In the last couple of years, I guess it's been in the news a lot for the issues around the gasoline pricing and some of the challenges that have happened, whether it's the five cents that got added to a litre of gas as a result of the Come By Chance refinery closing and questions from people all over the province: Why is that still there? What happened? Why are we paying for it? They're still asking those questions out there about that five cents a litre.

Of course, the significant up and down of the gas prices, where once the Public Utilities Board would set a price on a Thursday, in the past two years, it seems like there's no continuity to the prices. Perhaps some of that may be due to the world prices and what's happening and the fluctuations in the marketplace. That, of course, causes a lot of grief and concern. So those are some of the things that the public have been in the news about more recently.

The changes being proposed here today, the minister when he spoke talked about a review of the PUB and the related legislation that was started in November 2021. But what we don't have in front of us today is a copy of the review. So we have no idea what's in the review that was completed, which I think is something that's missing. It would be nice as a Legislature if that review had been released so when we talk about issues that were identified in the review that we would know what those issues were. That we would know that those issues are being addressed, but we have no knowledge of that.

We do not know what those issues were and there's nothing here that explains to us, in any way, what they were. Hopefully when we go to Committee, we have a lot more questions that will be asked about that.

At the same time, there is another review of the PUB which is under way. The Minister of Digital Government and Service NL ordered a review of petroleum pricing. Again, where are the results of that review? We're making significant changes to the PUB structure here, but we do not have any of the reviews and what exactly are these recommendations based on.

What is the reason the government has decided to move the direction when it comes to the number of commissioners or the part-time commissioners, or raising the limits? There is lots of detail. But again, the primary thing for me is the fact that the review is done and as legislators, as people in the House of Assembly, we do not get to share in the results of that review. We have not seen the review. I would think that what we should have here is that review released. Then, we would know and understand exactly what was in the review, what did it recommend. Government would be bringing forward the recommendations and then we would be sitting here talking about them.

That's simply just a question on the review process. I mean everything here is certainly something that we would support, but what we'll do is we'll have a lot more