PDF Version

October 29, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 32

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to rule on a point of order that was raised and spoken to by the Members

for St. John's West, for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, for Bonavista and for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave following the Oral Questions period on 24th day of

October.

The

Members voiced concern regarding comments expressed by the Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune. In carefully reviewing

Hansard , I found that the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune referenced

the Kirby Report from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards from October 3,

2018 with each of her questions.

However,

in her final question, she used the word “entire” when that was not the case as

was reported in the text of the CLS report. I, therefore, ask the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune to withdraw her remark.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

withdraw the word “entire.”

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

A point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of privilege, Sir.

MR. JOYCE:

I rise today on a point of

privilege, Mr. Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, in the House of Commons Procedure and

Practice states that a Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is

bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as possible after

becoming aware of the situation.

As you

indicated Friday, Mr. Speaker, before entering a question of privilege in this

hon. House, before rising to speak in the House, the Member must first give the

Speaker written notice of the matter; oral notice may be given privately to the

Speaker. This was done on Friday, October 26, 2018.

Mr.

Speaker, it was only Tuesday, October 23 of the past week that the reports were

tabled in the House of Assembly. To respect the process, I could not speak to

any Members of its content or seek necessary information to raise my point of

privilege concerning the release of my name as the person who released the names

of the individuals who filed the complaints.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 26, 2018 the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's stated in the

media scrum, when asked by media, why are you coming forth now, I quote. The

Member for St. Mary's stated – and I quote – “I'm talking about this now

because, unfortunately, Minister Joyce – unfortunately, today, my name has been

put out in the general public.” And this can be confirmed by CBC April 26, 2018,

or VOCM.

This

allegation was false, malicious and with no proof or evidence. The Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's stated in her evidence to the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards that I informed the mayor of Placentia on April 26, 2018.

He denied this claim, and the Member stated that a friend told her, and there

was no proof of who this friend was or any evidence to support this claim.

It is

very important to note this was on April 26, 2018. On April 25, 2018, after

meeting with the Premier and filing her complaint, she came down to a caucus

meeting. The minister from Placentia - St. Mary's stated: I just filed a

complaint with the Premier. It was the Member herself who informed the people

that she filed a complaint.

In her

submission to the Commissioner, she stated: I told caucus that I had met the

Premier and at the caucus meeting, but not that I was the one who had lodged a

formal complaint. This is absolutely not true, and she did inform caucus.

verify this, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to investigate and the finding of Members

will verify they heard this statement; the Member, myself, the Member for Humber

- Bay of Islands, the Member for Mount Scio, Bay Verte - Green Bay, Bonavista,

Burgeo - La Poile, Torngat Mountains, Labrador West, Lewisporte - Twillingate,

Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, and I'm sure there are others.

Also,

she stated her submission to the Commissioner: At the Cabinet table, one of the

ministers let everybody know it was me. I wanted to confirm that I was not at

that Cabinet table, as I was removed from Cabinet.

A CBC

reporter, on April 26, 2018, asked the question: Sherry Gambin-Walsh said you

ratted her out in Cabinet. I responded: I was not in Cabinet and I have no idea

what you're talking about.

In her

evidence to Bruce Chaulk, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's submitted the

minister's name who she claims told the Cabinet her name. I will not release

that name, but if the minister wishes to speak, he can identify himself.

In the

House of Assembly on April 26, 2018, the Member for Topsail and then the leader

of the Opposition, stated: “Now, Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the very

Member who the allegations are made against, according to what I'm reading

publicly.”

According to media reports on Twitter, yes, the media reporting on Twitter, that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, who

is sitting right here in this hon. House now, named the person who has expressed

concern about her publicly. “He publicly named a Member of this House of

Assembly who has previously expressed concerns about his conduct and his

behaviour.”

He also

stated: “Mr. Speaker, they entered into an agreement between the complainant and

the minister and the Premier himself just talked about confidentiality. Your

minister just named a person with concerns about him publicly.”

“Now we

have, what I understand, is the minister has now – it's been alleged publicly

here – named two different complainants who have raised concerns about his

conduct, that he's publicly named and he's called out and publicly made known

two names, Mr. Speaker.”

“Even

over the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker – so here we are today, we find now

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has publicly named the person who's

done this twice. One on his own Members has said he's named her publicly as

well.”

“Some

confidentiality, Mr. Speaker, when the complainant is going to release the name

publicly who is making the complaint. Some confidentiality that is. That is a

real good, confidential safe place, I say to the Premier.

One of

his own Members, according to CBC, said MHAs describe caucus meetings as a joke

and said people won't speak out because they're afraid of what will happen to

them. Well, here's another example, Premier, of what people are afraid of.” This

was the comments made by the Member for Topsail, the leader of the PC Party at

the time.

The

Leader of the Third Party, the Member for St. John's Centre, made comments with

no foundation and is totally false. She said: “As a woman and as an elected

Member of the House, I'm appalled at the behaviour of the Member for Humber -

Bay of Islands to publicly name those who have complained of harassment by him,

further victimizing them. This vengeful tactic is not at all acceptable and I am

furious that this Member for Humber - Bay of Islands and his total disrespect

for this House, for our MHA and for the people of the province.” These comments

were without any fact, any evidence and they were callous.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune at this time had not filed a

complaint or had informed the public that she had filed an official complaint.

On April 26, I stated that we had a disagreement over CEEP funding and there was

never an official complaint made of bullying, harassment to the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards.

As far

as the Member for Topsail, the leader of the PC Party stated I released the

names of the individual who filed complaints is without fact and no merit. Mr.

Speaker, all honourables must be aware that all statements about Members must be

factual, inside and outside the House of Assembly.

As the

nature of the allegations made by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's were

very sensitive and emotional and emotions were very high, all Members must

ensure that they speak the truth and ensure of this truth toward other Members.

Due to

these false allegations that I released the names of the complainants and

statements in the House of Assembly made by the Member for Topsail and the

Member for St. John's Centre, it has caused great anxiety, embarrassment and

grief for myself and my family.

Mr.

Speaker, I didn't release the names of the complainants and I ask that you

review this matter. If you find that there is a violation, I recommend that you

ask the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, the Member for Topsail, and the

Member for St. John's Centre to issue a written apology and a public apology to

this House. This will ensure that I can send this to all the media which have

reported on this issue.

O'Brien

and Bosc states: “It is impossible to codify all incidents might be interpreted

as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as

such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to

be prima facie include the damaging of the Member's reputation, the usurpation

of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their

staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading

information.”

O'Brien

and Bosc quote Maingot as stating: “The purpose of raising matters of

'privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and

credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to

uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its

Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be

reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised

in the House of Commons.”

I refer

to O'Brien and Bosc, page 141, where the matter involved privilege before the

House of Commons are treated with the utmost seriousness.

As you

outlined this week, there is a formal process to be followed. I have followed

this process and notified the Speaker of my intention to raise the issue of

privilege, and this is the earliest possible opportunity to raise my issue.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Are

there other speakers to this point of privilege?

The hon.

the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that I get

a copy of what the Member just entered into the House from

Hansard so I can seek my own legal

counsel before I respond.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

That

will be available through our office.

Are

there other speakers at this time?

At this

time, I propose that I will review the request by the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands and report back to this House as to whether or not there's a prima facie

ruling.

I'll

refer us back to our agenda, and we'll go to Statements by Members.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear from the

hon. Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl - Southlands, Cape St. Francis,

Labrador West, and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

privilege to recognize the tremendous success which was the 30th Annual Mount

Pearl City Days celebrations. This year's festivities included various

activities for citizens of all ages and interests including: a family outdoor

movie night, pig roast, block party in the square, seniors' tea time, drive-in

movie and a community breakfast.

The

festival culminated with a community garden party and mega birthday bash which

saw thousands of residents and visitors gather at the Ruth Avenue Sportsplex to

participate in fun activities, games of chance and take in some of the best

entertainment that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer, including: Claver

Street, the Daisy Cutters, Celtic Fiddlers, Freshly Squeezed, the Bishops,

Misconduct, Carolina East, the Chris Andrews Band and headliners, the Irish

Descendants.

Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would

not be possible if it were not for the hard work and dedication of many

community partners. I would therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join

me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the City Days Advisory Committee,

the various community groups and organizations, the sponsors and all of the

volunteers who contributed to the great success story which was City Days 2018.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

to recognize the Town of Torbay, its fantastic team of volunteers, and all the

athletes and coaches who participated in this year's Killick Coast Games.

Mr.

Speaker, the games were hosted by Torbay this summer and it included 450

athletes, ages 11 to 17, from six towns in the region: Torbay, Flatrock,

Bauline, Pouch Cove, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, and Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer

Cove.

A lot of

work goes into organizing and running this event and there was a great deal of

support from the towns and the residents. Myself, the Mayor of Torbay, Mayor

Scott, and the Mayor of Pouch Cove, Mayor Wall, were lucky enough to umpire

softball games. It was really nice to see the excitement and positivity that was

there among the athletes. A demo for wheelchair basketball took place and each

town had the opportunity to participate in scrimmages.

This

year, the Jack Byrne Trophy for the most overall points was presented by Mrs.

Bridget Byrne to the team of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. The Mayors Cup was

presented to the Town of Pouch Cove-Bauline-Flatrock for showing the most

spirited throughout the games. Athletes from each town were also presented with

the Diane Whelan Sportsmanship Award.

Mr.

Speaker, the Killick Coast Games demonstrate a wonderful commitment to sport and

community, and I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating everyone

involved for making this year's games such a success.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tuesday afternoon, 41 new Canadians from the Philippines, India, Guyana, El

Salvador, Iran, Haiti, Maroc, France, Jamaica, Nigeria and the Republic of Congo

gathered at the Wabush Hotel as they were honoured and awarded their official

Certificate of Canadian Citizenship by Judge Marie Tremblay.

Amongst

these new Canadians you will find doctors, teachers and many skilled trades.

Some of them are husbands and wives with families or starting new families in

our community.

Mr.

Speaker, Labrador West has always been a community of diversity in nationalities

and cultures since the first iron ore was mined in 1960 as prospectors and

miners descended on the new mining frontier. To this very day, we continue to

welcome immigrants from all corners of the world and encourage them to share

their talents and culture as they make Labrador West their home away from home.

While mining remains the dominant industry in the region, there are many

opportunities for new Canadians to share their expertise.

Mr.

Speaker, our doors are always open to new residents, and I ask all hon. Members

to join me in welcoming those 41 new Canadians to our community, to our province

and to our country.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

delighted to congratulate Laura Winter, Erin Power and Duane Andrews of The

Swinging Belles for winning the prestigious Telegram and Central Voice Fan's

Choice Entertainer of the Year, a competitive award voted on by the public, at

the 2018 MusicNL Awards.

The

Swinging Belles is a swing band for kids that is all about getting kids, parents

and the young at heart to get up and dance while enjoying swing, country and

jazz.

primary school teachers at Bishop Field Elementary, Laura and Erin have brought

their love of music to their work as educators. Erin and Laura recently

completed master's degrees in Education and Folklore respectively, and guitarist

Duane Andrews is an international performer and multi award-winning artist.

The

Swinging Belles' 2014 debut album won both a Juno and a Canadian Folk Music

Award for Children's Album of the Year.

Thank

you to The Swinging Belles for the work they do to promote the joy of music and

for encouraging the whole family to enjoy music together through their energetic

shows.

I will

ask all hon. Members of the House to join me in congratulating Laura Winter,

Erin Power and Duane Andrews for their Fan's Choice Entertainer of the Year

Award.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and the Human Resources Secretariat.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise today and provide an update on the considerable progress we've

made with collective bargaining.

Last

week, correctional officers represented by NAPE ratified their collective

agreement. This was the sixteenth agreement reached with NAPE this year, and

ends this round of negotiations on a high note.

All NAPE

agreements recognize the important contributions of our public service while

also respecting our fiscal reality. These deals include a wage freeze, the

elimination of a significant severance liability and secure changes to

post-employment benefits.

Mr.

Speaker, we've also made progress with CUPE, who are in the middle of their

ratification process on seven collective agreements. We continue to have

meaningful discussions with other unions, and I am confident that we will have

further agreements in the coming months.

When all

collective agreements are complete, we anticipate the elimination of severance

will save government $25 million annually, and changes to post-employment

benefits for new employees will realize savings in the tens of millions of

dollars.

The

elimination of severance is progressing, and to date we have completed over half

of severance payouts in government departments and some agencies, totalling

approximately $47 million. Eliminating severance is something other governments

have tried and failed. Mr. Speaker, this is a significant achievement. It is a

good news story for the province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr.

Speaker, our public service is filled with hardworking Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who deserve the respect of each and every one of us here in the

hon. House. That is why in 2014, 2015 the Progressive Conservative government

took the initiative to ensure the sustainability of the Teachers' Pension Plan

and Public Service Pension Plan through the pension reform initiatives. It is my

hope that the current Liberal administration will continue that work with other

pension plans.

As the

minister indicated, the payout of severance to our public service workers is

ongoing. Perhaps the minister can table a breakdown of the payments made in each

quarter thus far and any current backlog for individuals that are awaiting their

payment. Additionally, I suggest the minister provide an update on the severance

payment to management and non-union positions as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for this update. It's good that government is continuing to work

with the public service and to publicly express the importance of their

employees. It is a relief to know that there will be no layoffs, at least in the

near future, as we have already seen significant reductions in some areas.

commend those who strive to continue serving the public in these challenging

times.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

today to announce that this government, our government, has launched a virtual

data room for offshore Newfoundland and Labrador which can be found online at

www.zebradata.com .

This

world-class virtual data room includes well data, seismic data and drilling

reports. Zebra Data Services, which is headquartered in London, is providing

support as the service provider. There is no cost to government as this service

is user-pay.

The

virtual data room is an initiative of Advance 2030 – The Way Forward on Oil and

Gas, which was developed to position Newfoundland and Labrador as a globally

preferred location for oil and gas development. I'd like to recognize officials

at the Department of Natural Resources who have worked diligently on the virtual

data room initiative to ensure its successful delivery.

Mr.

Speaker, the province currently has five producing fields, more than 650 leads

and prospects and 20 basins identified. There have been seven new entrants in

the last two years and $2.6 billion in recent exploration work commitments.

We're

working hard to drive success in our offshore, which creates thousands of jobs

in the province on projects such as the West White Rose Project with an

estimated 5,000 person years of construction employment and 250 permanent

platform positions once operational; and the recently announced Bay du Nord

project with approximately 11,000 person years of employment expected over the

life of the project.

Mr.

Speaker, the virtual data room is just the latest example of that hard work.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

certainly thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Mr.

Speaker, the oil and gas industry is a bright spot in this province, no doubt.

Not only does oil royalties contribute to our provincial revenues but the

industry has contributed thousands of jobs to our economy. The impact of the

service and supply industry, in addition to direct jobs, is indeed immense.

The

availability of data helps keep this industry growing. The 2018 budget left

industry worried about this Liberal administration's commitment. When Nalcor was

told to cut the budget, the seismic program was sacrificed. The seismic program

is important because it helps educate the industry on where drilling potential

is. It is linked directly to creation of jobs within this province.

certainly urge the minister to commit to ensuring that Nalcor has a fully-funded

seismic program contained within next year's budget.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to the staff

and the department for their hard work on the virtual data room initiative. The

stewardship of our finite natural resources must not be taken lightly, so

openness and transparency in information is crucial as we move forward with the

development of any of our resources. We will see the department's efforts bear

fruit when the deadline for the C-NLOPB's call for bids culminates on November

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when a political scientist describes the hiring process as The Rooms as

Banana Republic, without the bananas, the voting public tends to take note.

I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: Who made the decision

to hire Carla Foote as executive director of marketing and development at The

Rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

minister responsible for The Rooms, I'm quite pleased with the appointment of

the position of Carla Foote in an executive-director role. She has the

qualifications to serve in this capacity position that has been created as part

of a review of workflow and organization at The Rooms.

What I

will say to the Member opposite is that I disagree with the political scientist

because the point is that all members of The Rooms board were followed through a

merit-based process of the Independent Appointments Commission. The CEO will go

through that process and Ms. Foote had served in an executive-level role in

government as an ADM or DM equivalent. She has made a lateral move to The Rooms

which is part of government. Same salary, same qualifications and it is not

abnormal for somebody to be moved (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On that

point, can the minister point this House to where in the practices, procedures

and laws of this province it is made possible for a lateral move to take place

without competition for merit between core government and an ABC, agency, board

or commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

As I said, Mr. Speaker, as

minister responsible for The Rooms, which is a Crown entity of government, an

agency, board or commission, the board was appointed recently through a

merit-based process. The CEO would go through that process. But it is the only

requirement when it comes to positions through the Public Service Commission, as

part of executive positions. They followed the appropriate process.

So if

somebody is serving in a role of a deputy minister or an assistant deputy

minister, it is not uncommon for them to move to a lateral position that is a

deputy minister or assistant deputy minister equivalent. It happens quite

regularly within government. The Rooms has just undertaken a new strategic plan

for three years, so this person is moving into that role with the same salary –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Can the minister explain to

the House whether the procedure that he just described of lateral transfer from

core government into an ABC, agency, commission or board, is a regular practice

under his government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

So, Mr. Speaker, as minister

responsible for The Rooms, I want to clarify that The Rooms is somewhat of a

different entity as a Crown corporation within government. The Rooms itself,

myself as minister, they have the same pay scales for all positions, the pay

bands for the managers, for directors, for the CEO as assistant deputy

ministers, as deputy ministers within government, and any hiring practice

requires a request for staffing from the CEO and will be signed by myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Do I understand then, Mr.

Speaker, that when a request is made to fill a position without competitive

examination, or entertaining applications from others on a merit-based process,

the minister always complies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, The Rooms has

been undergoing a review since 2016, and that's something that we had done in

consultation with the CEO, to look at the flow and look at the activity of staff

that are there and the roles and responsibilities. And this had undertaken quite

a period of time in this House before the Member opposite had sat in this House,

but there was a review of the legislation. We have been looking at The Rooms,

based on its new three-year plan, and the responsibilities that would be

undertaken by the current CEO and the management team in consultation with HRS

and the board.

The

board had approved these executive-level positions to be put in place, and this

is not uncommon for somebody that is in a government position to be transferred

within another executive-level position. It's a lateral move and the same

salary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has

stated in the media that there was an urgent need to fill this role, even though

vacant for almost two years.

Can the

minister explain the nature of that urgency at The Rooms to require this role to

be filled without going through the merited process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, The Rooms is

certainly a provincial entity that is doing incredible work and it just had a

three-year strategic plan that is undertaken. The position that he's referring

to that has been unfilled for two years is a director position. This is an

executive director-level position at an executive salary that was approved by

the board, and when it comes to hiring executive level positions within

government, whether it's a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister, this

person had already worked in government at the head of marketing and

communications for the brand division responsible for all core government. She

would amply be the most qualified person within government to do this great work

here at The Rooms earning the same salary and in a role she already was in in

terms of being able to be (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate

that Ms. Foote may be a person of great talent and may indeed be the person best

suited for the role, but how does anybody know?

Did the

board of directors of The Rooms, and or the CEO of The Rooms, decide, without

consultation with the minister, to make the decision to hire Ms. Foote without

going through a competitive process? And if they did consult the minister, what

exactly did he instruct them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, as I've pointed

out time and time again, I'm not sure if the Member opposite understands when

somebody is in a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister role as an

executive within government – somebody who was the associate secretary to

communications in Cabinet for a number of years and responsible for all

marketing and communication – has those qualifications. It is not uncommon to

see somebody transferred in a lateral move to another position, and that is what

had taken place here at The Rooms and a competition is not required.

The

former administration had done this previously with a transfer to the MMSB with

a Mike Samson. This was not a particular issue for the Member opposite at that

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again

point out that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– it would have been

protective of the reputation of the person filling this job had a competitive

process been followed.

Would

the minister table the business plan that created this urgency?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, for the Member

opposite to talk about protecting reputation – this is very important and this

is a real low point for the Member opposite to be bringing up these types of

points. It was his very own father, who was a federal minister at the time, that

had appointed the Member opposite and his brother as an agent to work for

Newfoundland and Labrador, and had said that this –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

His father, who's a former

LG, had said: this is the worst and lowest point, this was vindictive of the

Opposition to make this move and damaging to the professional career of my son.

It's

very unfortunate that the Member opposite is taking this line of questioning

when he knows the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I suspect this is called the red herring technique.

I didn't

hear an answer to my question: Would the minister table the business plan that

created the urgency?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, it's called the

Strategic Plan of The Rooms, the three-year vision that's taking place.

The

Rooms has moved far beyond its fundraising and exhibit development role. We've

had this debate and discussion in the House of Assembly, and I know the Member

opposite wasn't a part of that debate and that discussion when we talked about

Bill 56 and we talked about all the opportunities that is available at The Rooms

to build the synergies and connectivity between core government and The Rooms,

because The Rooms has to have that connectivity with Tourism and Culture, but

also with the Education, with Intergovernmental Affairs, and look at making it

that cultural institution, but also a place of which we can do business and do

other activities to elevate the status of the Rooms to implement all the

initiatives that are part of the strategic plan.

This is

a good move by having the most qualified person who ran marketing and

communications (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, does the House understand then, correctly understand, that the only

document that created the urgency for this hiring is the three-year business

plan, which I assume is publicly available?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes, the strategic plan is

readily available. It's about creating visitor-focused, collections-based

experiences that's certainly emotional and participatory, interactive.

There

was a process of which a marketing firm, an agency of record was hired so that

this person can support this role and everything that The Rooms is doing to

engage the community.

We had

broad consultation with patrons, with supporters at The Rooms. We had

consultation when it comes to the arts community. This is meant to be an

engaging process of which the person who is most qualified to do this role

within government has the equivalent of a DM or ADM is transferred in a lateral

move, earning that same salary to be able to do that role.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier

this year, The Rooms issued – and my question is again for the minister – an RFP

for an agency of record, for a marketing agency to do, and I quote: Marketing,

consultation and planning, campaign strategy and creative development, social

media strategy, online and digital content, media online planning and buying.

Would

the minister state whether this RFP was awarded, to whom it was awarded, and

whether they are still on contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And,

yes, I certainly can state for the record that the Idea Factory was engaged in

June 2018 and it's a contract that expires in 2020. The contract value doesn't

exceed over $100,000. The Rooms established a three-person selection committee

to review the four submitted proposals, and that the appropriate protocols were

followed at that time to award the contract.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for that

information.

Can he

explain to the House why The Rooms needed to hire a marketing firm and an

executive director of marketing and development?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker.

I would

say to the Member opposite: In the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, when we look at our beautiful ad campaigns that we have for

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have an executive position for assistant deputy

minister responsible for tourism, we have a director responsible for tourism,

but we also have an agency of record called target marketing that has been in

that position for a number of years, that extends well beyond this

administration and into the previous administration.

It is

not unusual to have an agency on record to be able to do your creative and do

the work that's necessary, and have an executive-level position to bring

everything full circle. This person is going to be the connector between

government, all of core government and The Rooms and the public.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again

for the minister: Can he distinguish in what particulars the hiring of Ms. Foote

is different from what the former minister of Municipal Affairs tried to do in

intervening in the public service job competition detailed in reports tabled

last week?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly

can't comment on any matter that would be in a particular report. What I can say

is that when it comes to the hiring practice within government of an

executive-level position, somebody who would be in a deputy ministerial role, or

an assistant deputy ministerial role, it is not uncommon that these positions

would not be advertised, and that there would be no competition.

This is

a lateral move; this is a transfer of position. The person is more than amply

qualified to do the work, and I look forward to working with the individual in

the role of the executive director of marketing and development at The Rooms to

continue to elevate the role and responsibility of The Rooms for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the

public is gratified to be reassured by the minister of the talents and the

fitness of this person for the job. However, it is understood that when this job

was previously advertised, there were over 70 applicants and the competition was

cancelled.

How do

you know if some of those individuals were not possibly more qualified?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

something that the Member opposite is quite confused on and I've explained it

already that this is a newly created position. It's an executive-level position.

It is not the director of marketing position that he is stating in his question.

There were, in 2016, 77 people that did apply; three people were screened in as

qualified; one person dropped off; and The Rooms cancelled and did not fill this

particular position at that time.

I had

nothing to do with that particular matter, but what I will say is that the new

position that is created does follow the appropriate process. The individual has

been hired and is doing great work. I look forward to the additional

executive-level position and the work that's going to be done at The Rooms as

well that has been approved by the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister.

My next

question is for the Premier. On March 10, 2016 the Premier stated – and I quote

– many people made it very clear to him that appointments should be merit based,

not political based, not done with a political bias – unquote.

Does the

Premier still stand by this statement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

said, as the minister quite eloquently answered all the questions today, the

merit base – Ms. Foote, the lady that you're talking about, is certainly

qualified. It was a lateral move. Mr. Speaker, in this particular case here,

this has been a decision that has made for new position for the executive

director of marketing and development, a lateral move, no increase in pay, Mr.

Speaker.

I know

the Leader of the Opposition, they want to play some politics with all of this;

completely understandable what they're doing here. Mr. Speaker, they themselves,

they know very well what the truth is about all of this. This is a lateral move

within government right now and Ms. Foote is extremely qualified to do the work

that she's been asked to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, today on the

Order Paper we have a motion on democratic reform.

December 18, 2015 the current Minister of Finance had the honour of making

history in being elected as Speaker in the very first contested secret vote of

Members.

Premier,

do you believe in electing a Speaker by a free and unfettered secret vote of

Members?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Members opposite participated in this free vote. Both individuals that were

interested in the Speaker position on both occasions right now – I have said

publicly, I said to all those that would have been involved, Mr. Speaker, that

we encourage people to put their name forward. I did that to all that

participated.

Mr.

Speaker, but I do remember a time – I've been in this Legislature long enough to

know now that that was not the case with the former administration. Because down

to the last, essentially, hour back in 2011 there were names, and the previous

administration would not allow it to go to a free vote and the decision was made

by the leader at the time, and supported by Members at the time, not to have an

election. Quite (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Well, in listening to that

response I would expect an amendment to

The Way Forward on agriculture that would include the growing of bananas.

Electing, rather than appointing, a Speaker was a measure of democratic reform –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

– adopted on November 12,

Premier:

Do you believe the importance of and need for democratic reform?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interesting enough, I will speak to the

preamble, since the Member opposite

brought it up about The Way Forward on

agriculture. He himself seems to be very interested because it was only just

last week he was supporting this government, Mr. Speaker, about

The Way Forward on agriculture. And I can tell you, just a few

months ago he sat in my office and told us how great the agriculture initiative

was for this government when he was looking at running for us in the last

by-election.

I would

ask the Member opposite, would he say that I'm making a mistake by saying that

he did not sit in my office? Now is your opportunity, Member, get up, stand in

your chair: Did you speak – did you sit in my office and have that discussion,

yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

Order,

please!

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

say I support all expansion of agriculture, no matter what government is in

power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

Following a Cabinet shuffle

on July 31, 2017, the Premier endorsed a Member for post of Speaker saying:

“We've got a plan for” that Member. The Member did not need such an endorsement

to have the respect of all Members on either side.

Premier:

Did you intend your endorsement to be an indication on the vote and it would not

be free but whipped for Members of your caucus?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand up in this House and speak about democratic reform in the House

of Assembly. And as the Members have pointed out, we do have a motion on the

floor. It's the first motion in well over a decade in this House to talk about

making fundamental changes to democracy and our democratic process.

We're

open to suggesting any number of changes, which is why we'll have a resolution

that we're hoping everybody will support, and the creation of a committee that

will allow Members from all sides to work with experts, to work with academics,

to work with people in this province to talk about how can we make this House

better for all people in the province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, after the

Premier endorsed the candidate for Speaker, did he indeed say he would leave the

decision of the House up to the House of Assembly? Premier, did you make it

clear to your caucus and your Cabinet and your staff that this vote would be

free and not whipped?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand up and say that, certainly, I can only speak for myself but I

knew I was free to vote for whoever I wanted in this process. It was a bit

unusual, in fact, because we had never seen a vote for Speaker in the House of

Assembly ever before.

I can

remember hearing about rumours in 2011 when there was some trouble about a

Member wanting to run and being shut down by the premier at the time and his

colleagues; but, when it comes to the processes that I've been a part of, we're

certainly free to vote for who we wanted.

Again,

I'm happy to vote again if there's ever another vote on Speaker in this House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Premier, last Thursday

your Members voted down an amendment to have a democratic reform committee

report to the House of Assembly. Rather, you wanted it to report to an

individual Minister of the Crown.

Do we

expect the same type of whipping to occur in the democratic reform committee run

by a government minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

thing I can guarantee you is there'll certainly be no whipping when it comes to

this process.

Now,

there are two things here. What I would say is that this process we've put

forward is very similar to the same process that the Members opposite put

forward in the All-Party Committee on Mental Health; one that started in their

administration and continued in ours, and was supported by all Members because

it was for the betterment of our province. We are using the exact same process.

Given

that not a single Member on the other side has ever stood up and made any sort

of motion about democratic reform in this House, I find it very interesting that

they're standing up asking questions about how we would do it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I just remind the Member, we

did a private Member's resolution on recall legislation that was voted down. So

we did bring this to the House in one of the areas of democratic reform.

Despite

this province giving $40 million to Canopy Growth to ensure supply for this

province, shelves are empty. When the agreement was signed the Department of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation said this agreement guarantees the

province a supply of cannabis.

I ask

the minister: Does your department's agreement with them penalize them for their

inability to provide the supply?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

quite pleased to have entered into a $40 million incentive contract to guarantee

supply with Canopy Growth. In order to do that, Canopy Growth is going to be

building a production facility here in this province. It's not costing the

taxpayers anything. It's creating 145 jobs and it's going to return benefits to

the province. They have guaranteed over a year to produce 8,000 kilograms of

cannabis and supply to our province. They are living up to their obligations.

I don't

know why the Member opposite is so anti-business and would rather have jobs

elsewhere in other provinces rather than have jobs here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We're doing great business and great business deals here. There are

shortages in cannabis all across (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was no other province

gave $40 million worth of credits to any other supplier; that's the issue. If

that's a great business deal, God help us, I'd say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the CEO of Canopy Growth has said they are treating all provinces

equally, but our province has given $40 million. That's $40 million that's not

going into the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury over the next 10 years. That's

money we're not receiving.

So I ask

the minister: Do you believe that $40 million should be giving this province

even some priority on meeting supply, or is it just a free for all for this

company that you have no control over?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of TCII

for a quick response, please.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, without a supply

agreement, there would be no guarantee. There would be absolutely no supply.

Canopy Growth is supplying our province. They are providing for Newfoundland and

Labrador and there is no $40 million that is being given to Canopy Growth. Jobs

are being created and a return to the province.

For

every dollar that is being provided to Canopy Growth, we are getting more as

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a good deal for the people of the

province. I don't know what your solution would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, people were astounded once again when a former Liberal staffer was

hired for a senior position at The Rooms without a competition. People are fed

up with this kind of politics. The Premier actually campaigned on taking

politics out of the hiring process.

Now, the

minister said the director of marketing and development, a newly created senior

position, was urgent. The minister also tried to make this controversial issue

go away by portraying it as a standard, lateral appointment; but we all know

that such lateral moves, without competitions, happen at the DM and the ADM

level, and not for core civil service positions at the director level.

I ask

the Premier. What exactly was the urgency and what does he have to say to the

people for this blatantly political appointment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm very

happy to say in the House again that I'm very proud that the Premier created the

Independent Appointments Commission to create appointments on a merit base for

agencies, boards and commissions for

those in a volunteer capacity. The Rooms board has been appointed through a

meritorious process. The CEO will also go through that particular process.

When it

comes to deputy minister or assistant deputy minister positions or their

equivalences, the person who is an executive director-level role, which is an

executive-level role at The Rooms today, has gone on a lateral move. This is not

uncommon for the public service within government that somebody would move from

an executive-level position to another.

She's

receiving the same salary, and she's more than amply qualified to do the work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, this is a

director level.

Mr.

Speaker, as an agent of the Crown, The Rooms Corporation has followed

merit-based appointment processes similar to those used by the public service

and other Crown agencies. It launched competitions, conducting interviews with

potential candidates and for positions at the level of director, it also

regularly advertised nationally.

I ask

the Premier: Why was there no competition? Why were there no interviews? Who

ultimately made the decision not to follow this process? Was it the CEO or was

it the minister, and who specifically made the ultimate decision to hire Ms.

Foote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, as minister

responsible for The Rooms I have to say that the Member opposite doesn't – I

have to explain it again, I guess. This is an executive director position; it is

an executive-level equivalency. Your

preamble and everything that you raised

towards it talked about a director position. There is a complete difference

between a hiring process for a director-level position, than it is for somebody

who is an executive-level role.

And when

it comes to The Rooms and what they're doing, it was deemed that executive-level

positions are required at The Rooms to elevate them to do exactly what they're

tasked with in their strategic plan and the initiatives that they will undertake

to make sure that they have the synergies with government that they can continue

to do the great work that they do. I know you like (inaudible)–

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, with the urgency

for this position and the executive director, they have the whole country to

choose from, yet they did not even advertise or have a competition.

So, Mr.

Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

– can the Premier confirm

that essentially the same or a similar position was advertised by The Rooms

earlier this year, that the salary was in fact a hundred thousand, and that the

CEO offered it to an experienced and talented applicant, but then the offer was

suddenly reneged.

Why, and

had Ms. Foote applied for that position at that time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

TCII.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

the organizational review of The Rooms, and what has been taken place since Bill

56, we have gone down an organizational review in consultation with the CEO and

with their management team, with HRS, to determine what would be the best flow

of activity and responsibilities for positions at The Rooms.

This had

been discussed with the board and approved by the board that there would be two

executive-level positions created at The Rooms based on flow and responsibility.

One of those executive-level positions is the executive director of marketing

and development, and the other executive-level position would be for museums and

galleries because of the workflow that had taken place. So, there are actually

two positions that have been created at an executive level at The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi for a very quick question, please.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation will he table a copy

of the contract for the position of director of marketing and development at The

Rooms.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of TCII

for a quick response, please.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any

document that can be tabled before this House, I will certainly endeavour to

bring that back to the House and make it available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Oral

Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act, Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as Member for Burin - Grand Bank, I stand today to give notice of the

following private Members' resolution:

WHEREAS

stress among children is estimated to have increased 45 per cent over the past

30 years; and

WHEREAS

in 2016 intentional self-harm was the first leading cause of death in Canadians

aged 10 to 14 and second leading cause of death in Canadians aged 15 to 19; and

WHEREAS

initiatives like Bell Let's Talk have shown that overcoming stigma around mental

health is essential in ensuring people are comfortable seeking help; and

WHEREAS

this government established Towards

Recovery: A Vision for a Renewed Mental Health and Addictions System for

Newfoundland and Labrador as part of

The Way Forward , to modernize the approach to promoting mental wellness

across all populations; and

WHEREAS

following the release of the Premier's task force report

Now is the Time , this government developed an Education Action Plan

which reflects the importance of student mental health;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House will continue to increase social

and emotional learning in our schools by focusing on mental health education and

awareness.

And

that's seconded by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And the

private Member's resolution just entered shall be the private Member's

resolution that is debated on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give

notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House do not adjourn at 5:30

on Tuesday, October 30, tomorrow.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

present the background to this petition as follows:

WHEREAS

the Bay d'Espoir highway and its branch roads, Routes 360, 361, 362, 363, 364

and 365, have become overgrown with very dangerous roadside alder growth; and

WHEREAS

the Coast of Bays region is a very, very busy area with a high volume of

industrial traffic for aquaculture, the fishery and hydro-electricity; and

WHEREAS

the region has a transient workforce that requires workers to travel the highway

at early morning hours and late at night, often in foggy, dangerous weather

conditions with no cell coverage; and

WHEREAS

there have been weekly incidents of moose accidents in the region this summer,

some very serious and daily near misses; and

WHEREAS

all residents are very concerned and worried to drive the highway due to a fear

of a moose accident; and

WHEREAS

every effort should and must be made to protect the safety of residents and

reduce unnecessary road hazards for travellers;

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to address the

serious and dangerous problem of alder overgrowth in the Coast of Bays region,

expeditiously and immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, I have here today three pages of a petition and this petition has been

circulated throughout the entire region. I'm expecting we will have thousands of

signatures by the time it is submitted in its entirety, because the one issue

that I heard over and over and over again from every single one of my 22

communities this summer was the deplorable state of alders on our roads.

I have

picture after picture after picture of people who have struck moose and are

lucky to be alive today. It's the grace of God that they still are. We've had

some very, very serious run ins, and almost every day someone has a story to

tell: I almost struck a moose today.

Over the

last three years, Mr. Speaker, we haven't seen much brush clearing on the Bay

d'Espoir highway and people are noticing. It really is becoming now to the point

where it's hazardous to our health. We have ambulances. We don't have a hospital

in the Coast of Bays region, we have clinics;, but if someone's having a heart

attack or a brain aneurysm, they have to be sent to Grand Falls. Doesn't matter

if it's 2 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

We need

safe roads to drive on. The ambulance operators need to be sure that a moose

isn't going to jump out of the alder and right on to the road, because you can

literally put your hand out the window, Mr. Speaker, and grab that alder as

you're driving along.

So I

certainly hope that the government hears how serious it is in the Coast of Bays

region, and takes action immediately to do something about it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I concur

with the hon. Member when it comes to brush cutting, and that's why this

government we continue to invest $2 million a year in brush cutting. We've also

taken brush cutting to a point where we're doing earlier tenders, and that's

been successful for us in many things, in road construction and also in brush

cutting.

But I do

take a small exception to the Member's comment about the last three years. I am

going to remind the Member that alders didn't grow in the last three years. It

takes a bit longer for that, for serious brush to grow, Mr. Speaker, and the

Member knows – the Member and I had conversations about this – every single

highway in this province is important to us as a government.

Mr.

Speaker, when you're dealing with 10,000 kilometres of roadway, limited budget,

it's hard to cut every single bit of brush every year, but the Member gets up

and talks about the last three years. Well, those trees didn't grow in the last

three years. It takes time.

So, I

don't know what happened in the years previous, but as a government we're

committed to brush clearing and we're working with SOPAC and we're working with

others for public awareness when it comes to help making the public aware of

moose and the challenges that presents on our highways.

We've

been successful with our brush-clearing program and we'll continue to work with

our brush clearing in this province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the trees did grow for over the past three years though all the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I present the

following petition on behalf of residents from my district:

Route 10

on the southern Avalon forms a large

section of the Irish Loop. It is a

significant piece of infrastructure and is the main highway through the Irish

Loop. The highway plays a major role in the commercial, residential growth of

our region.

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 that immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10

South Shore Highway for the safety of commuters, prevention of moose-vehicle

accidents. Reasons due to the volume of vehicles travelling the highway daily.

Now, I

just heard the minister reference about trees growing in the past three years,

but I do believe there was growth in the forestry in alders in the past three

years, and this is significant. I understand the minister has said there's vast

amount of kilometres of highway and byroads across the province, all certainly

with our moose population deserve attention. And I do understand from his

perspective there's a lot of work to be done, and we need to certainly look at

and rate those areas in regard to safety and the importance of those areas.

I do

acknowledge, as well, the Witless Bay Line, through the minister's department,

we are doing some work this particular year, which I certainly acknowledge that.

But obviously there are other concerns as well, and that's what I'm doing today,

bringing these concerns forward on other pieces of Route 10.

Significant, I know – four or five years ago we did a

section from Tors Cove

past La Manche, which was very significant in regard to the amount of work that

was done. We also did some work in the Trepassey region. But, intertwined in all

of that, on Route 10 there are various other areas that require brush cutting. I

did submit last year, I think, in regard to requests and I'll do it again this

year, but there are other areas that need attention.

I ask

the minister to look at it, work with the local depots and those staff we have

on the ground. They certainly do a good job but they need the resources to deal

with this. As I said, there is some work to be done on Witless Bay Line which I

acknowledge. There are other areas, and I ask for due consideration for these

areas related to safety, moose vehicle collisions, that we all know are very

serious. None of us want to see this, and do what we can to address those areas

as soon as possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As to

the earlier petition, I thank the Member for the petition. He is correct when he

does point out that this is a safety hazard throughout the province. It is

something we take very seriously as a department and as a government, and as I

guess all Members in this House would.

One of

the things I did outline in my last answer was we are working with SOPAC for

awareness. The Member points out that we are doing some work this year on

Witless Bay Line. One of the things we're trying to do with our brush cutting,

no different than what we're doing with paving contracts, is take larger

stretches of road and actually get them done.

I know

there are some contracts coming up in the minister's district next construction

season. Because one of the other opportunities that we find when we're doing

construction and roadbed construction is we'll often add – we talk about a $2

million budget for brush cutting but the other portion of that as well is that

most of the time when we're doing road construction tenders through our

engineering division, we'll also add brush cutting on as a part of that.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I get the gist of the petitions. The reality is there are a lot of

roadways, and it's very important for all of us and it's something that our

department is committed to continuing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada, and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index and minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth, and service sector employees, are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose 5 per cent – 5 per cent, Mr. Speaker – between 2010

and 2016, while many food items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is absolutely an issue of fairness and justice. How unfair for

someone to work full-time hours and still live in poverty. For someone in this

day and age, 2018, in Newfoundland and Labrador to work full-time hours – often

minimum wage jobs are difficult jobs, are strenuous jobs. You often do not have

health benefits or pension benefits; yet, no matter if you are working full-time

you still live in poverty. That is not fairness and justice.

All the

research – currently, minimum wage in this province is $11.15. It went up by a

mere few pennies in the last increase; a mere few pennies. That's like the 1930s

when people were on the dole. Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this.

It's

very interesting, the research that's being done around increases in minimum

wage – both in other parts of Canada and even in some places in the States –

shows that there's an economic benefit to the overall economy of the province

where minimum wage has been raised to $15 and where minimum wage has been raised

significantly in other jurisdictions.

So we're

not saying to shock the system at $15 immediately. We're suggesting to reach $15

by the year 2021. That still gives us three years, Mr. Speaker – well, a little

bit less than three year. This is an issue of justice and fairness.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

Thank

you.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

all of us in government, we all realize we have to somewhere strike a balance

with regard to what we're looking at, employers and employees.

Mr.

Speaker, when the Member opposite talks it was mere pennies; when we came to

office we made significant changes. We made two minimum wage changes within a

year, and then – actually, if we count April 1 last year, it was three. So we

increased it to $11.15.

Mr.

Speaker, there were considerable consultations that were done throughout the

province when we talked about minimum wage, and there were a number of

recommendations that came back. Not a lot came back with recommendations that we

would increase to $15 an hour, but there were some recommendations. We know

there are different agencies and we know there are different organizations. We

know different groups have differing opinions on what the minimum wage should

be.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it's important for us to be able to work with these organizations and

these groups. We've made significant changes when we talk about poverty

reduction, when we talk about making changes to legislative, to the Labour

Standards Act, and we will continue to do that.

Mr.

Speaker, last year we increased the minimum wage. We have it now attached –

every April 1 it will be on the national CPI average. So we are making

differences and we will continue to work with that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies, and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases for the Public Utilities Board.

Once the

Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to further

increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizens of our

province. While government has indicated they're working with Nalcor to mitigate

rates, they've provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to so. Therefore,

we petition the House of Assembly as follows:

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the

potential options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan

to deal with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be

provided to the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and

potential suggestions for improvement.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, we could all lament on what happened. We know there are people on both

sides of the House of Assembly here today who supported Muskrat Falls and we

know there are people on both sides of the House of Assembly who did not support

it; but that's for the Inquiry to determine as to exactly what happened and who

knew what, or who should have known what and so on. I certainly look forward to

the results of that Inquiry.

With

that said, regardless of what happens at the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, we do know

we have a looming issue in terms of power rates. People in Newfoundland and

Labrador are very concerned with that, and they're looking for some solutions.

Now, as

is indicated, government has indicated that ratepayers and taxpayers, neither

one apparently are going to be on the hook for it – which all sounds wonderful.

I would certainly hope that's the case, but people are not exactly trusting

those words. They want to see a detailed plan as to how we intend to get there.

To date, there has been no detailed plan, other than to say don't worry about

it, basically. So the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are calling upon the

government to provide that plan.

Today, I

have petitions. These are, again, primarily from the CBS area, but I know for a

fact that we have thousands of signatures from all throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is a concern for the people.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

to respond to the petition. I think it's very important that we do have a plan,

as we move into 2021 and 2022. It's very important.

As the

Premier of this province has clearly indicated that the construct of Muskrat

Falls, the whole premise of Muskrat Falls, that 100 per cent of the cost of

Muskrat Falls – the Member opposite indicated that he voted in favour of that

and he did know that 100 per cent of the cost of Muskrat Falls would have been

borne by the ratepayers. The Premier has said categorically that will not

happen. Only 40 per cent, a maximum 40 per cent of the energy from Muskrat Falls

will be used in this province, Mr. Speaker.

I will

point out that when Muskrat Falls was sanctioned, it was indicated at that time

that even at the cost of Muskrat Falls at that time, it would have driven rates

to somewhere between 15 and 16 cents. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have 15 and 16

cents even as something that's out there. We're really working hard to make sure

that the increases, if there are to be any increases, are not in that range.

We're

really working hard to make sure that the people of this province's rates are

protected and that is the role of the Public Utilities Board as well, Mr.

Speaker. As we move to 2021-2022, we'll put a plan in place.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,

second reading of Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 9,

An Act

To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 9 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2 be now

read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No.

2.” (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand that it's been moved and seconded, so I'll get straight to the

speaking points. It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to stand in the House and bring

forward amendments to the Revenue

Administration Act relating to the reduction of retail sales tax on

automobile insurance.

everybody knows, this was announced as part of

Budget 2018 . What's happening, Mr. Speaker, there's 5 per cent of

the 15 coming off of automobile insurance over the course of the next four

years. So, as of January 1, there will be 2 per cent, the following January

there will be 1 per cent, and 1 per cent the January after that, and again the

January after that, to total 5 per cent.

We made

the commitment at the time that we'd like to go even further than that. If the

situation of the province improves such that we are able to go further than

that, we will, but it will be guaranteed a minimum of 5 per cent over the next

four years.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we've been clear. I know that this tax is something I don't like. Most

people in the province don't like this tax. The tax measures that were brought

in place in 2016 were primarily a result of the situation the province found

itself in at the time. We were dealing with a projected deficit of $2.7 billion.

At the end of the fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, based on some measures that this

current government made, that deficit was brought back to $2.2 billion.

At that

time, oil projections in the budget of 2015 had called over a five-year period

for oil revenues to be considerably higher than they were in 2016 or 2017. Even

this year, Mr. Speaker, based on oil performing well, oil projections in budget

'15 were higher than what they're actually performing at now this year.

So,

based on projections of where the province would be deficit-wise over the course

of those five years, we had to deal with the fact that oil prices were lower

than anticipated, and therefore we brought in measures to deal with the

situation we were dealing with.

So, Mr.

Speaker, as I've said on many occasions, as we're able to reduce the tax burden,

not only on automobile insurance but in other areas, we will do that. In

Budget 2018 we saw the payroll tax

change, which is something the business community were asking for. For example,

we've seen a reduction in the gas tax. The temporary levy that was put in place

will be eliminated in 2019. There is legislation already passed in this

Legislature to ensure that that temporary deficit reduction measure will be

eliminated.

We've

seen the book tax eliminated, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring that as

the fiscal situation of the province improves, we will have a balanced approach.

I said that the very first day that I became Finance Minister. My colleagues on

this side of the House strongly support that position. As the position of the

province improves, we will reduce tax measures in this province correspondingly.

Mr.

Speaker, reducing the tax on automobile insurance was an obvious choice as we

looked at ways to reduce taxes that would have a broad impact, and this

reduction will have an impact not only on motorists in the province, but also on

small businesses that have vehicle fleets or transportation as part of their

operations. With this tax reduction, we'll have a significant positive impact to

the largest cross-section of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So, Mr.

Speaker, as I said, this will start on January 1, 2019 as part of the 5 per cent

reduction on automobile insurance tax. One change that we made, I already

mentioned the payroll tax, that will eliminate the payroll tax being paid by 50

additional companies, and the remaining 1,200 companies that pay payroll tax

will pay up to $2,000 less per year in taxes.

That was

something that they'd been calling for, the business community had been calling

for, literally, for about two decades to see some changes in that. That's the

start. We'd like to see further changes to the payroll tax as well, which will

benefit a number of businesses throughout the province.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at some of what we've done as part of

Budget 2018 , the investments in

infrastructure, the investments in expanding and growing the economy,

diversifying the economy, and finding efficiencies, the attrition measures that

we see, these are all done to continue to improve the economy in this province.

We are striving to do that; we're striving to improve the job base in the

economy. We know that based on the three megaprojects – two of them have

concluded and Muskrat Falls is now winding down – there were some 17,000 people

working on those projects.

We also

had the Fort McMurray situation where they face the same challenges in Fort

McMurray with oil prices declining that we face, on top of the fact that they

had the fire in Fort McMurray, and literally thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who were working in Fort McMurray and commuting from this province

to there making very high wages were affected by that.

So in

addition to the jobs as a result of the megaprojects, you had the Fort McMurray

effect; but, despite that, based on what we're doing to try and diversify the

economy and create jobs, we've seen: in July of this year improved job numbers,

employment numbers over July of last year; August this year, improvement over

August of last year; September of this year, an improvement over September of

last year.

So we're

starting to see things improve. I am looking forward and continue to look

forward to things improving in this province, Mr. Speaker, because our solid

commitment to the people of this province is as things improve so that – it's a

balanced approach. We don't have to continue to put money on the province's

credit card to the point that it was in 2015-16, where over $2 billion was put

on the province's credit card. We're going to balance that, and we're going to

reduce taxes as we're able to do so.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 9,

An Act to Amend the Revenue

Administration Act.

The

minister just took us through, to some degree, the implementation and the intent

of the legislation over the next four years to take 50 per cent of the retail

sales tax collected on automobile insurance down to 10 over a four-year period.

budget 2016, I think this was an action taken by the current administration to

put back on the 15 per cent which was vacated and taken off by the prior

administration, fundamentally to look at the ability to free up dollars in

people's pockets. He talked about the word balance, and there is a balance. It's

about making sure there's minimal taxation, and, as well, allow the expenditure

to occur for people's disposable income so they can buy things, they can drive

the economy and they can provide services for their family. So that's the

balance we need to strike, and in any government they make decisions in regard

to what that balance is going to be.

Now, we

go back to 2016. The first budget of this administration, this was one, along

with other taxes and fees. I think there were 50 new taxes and 300 more that

were adjusted accordingly, related to the whole taxation direction they had

taken.

The

minister referenced coming back to surplus and balance. They outlined a

seven-year plan, or seven-year roadmap. I'll get to that in a little while. The

AG has commented on that.

Recently, the consolidated statements for 2016-2017 financial year has been – or

'17-'18, I think it was, has been filed. There's some commentary on that in

regard to the current efforts of the current administration of that seven-year

plan in getting to balance in '21-'22 and calling that into question based on

not getting your expenditures reduced to where they needed to be, over

expenditures in the budget programs.

If you

look at the 2016 budget, 2017 budget and 2018, all of those had increased

expenditures from the prior years when you look at the totality of those

budgets. So it's an interesting commentary on getting our fiscal house in order.

In 2016,

a different Finance Minister brought down that budget, but there was much

discussion again about a two-phased approach dealing with taxation and the

economic challenges we face. One was that early on in the budget process it

would deal with the revenue side of the ledger. In that we saw, as I said, 300

taxes increased and 50 more added. One of those was a rollback of people who

didn't have to pay the 15 per cent retail sales tax on their insurance. That was

put back on. That was one part of those new taxes that were added.

So in

that process – early on in the budget process it was that it was a revenue

generator and we're going to deal later in the year, in that fiscal year with

expenditures, getting expenditures under control and matching up that balance

sheet. At the time the minister said Cabinet – and all the folks over there went

through every department line by line. Line by line they went through and they

looked at everything they needed to do, but we never did get to the

expenditures. There was supposed to be one in the late fall of 2016 and we were

going to look at it later in the fall, again rolling into the next budget year

but we never did see it.

that's probably why, when you look at the audited financial statements that were

released just a little while ago, targets have not been met. Whether it's a

reduction in expenditures, or whether it's the expenditures themselves, the

targets have been missed. That factors into the whole seven-year plan and the

commentary, as I said, from the AG and others of the likelihood and probability

of meeting that based on the actions we're taking.

This

bill speaks to a one-off in regard to the actions that were taken then in 2016

and maintained in 2017, and in 2018 spoke to phasing this out; not phasing it

out completely, but basically going from 15 to 10 per cent. This culminates with

all those other, I guess taxes and fees we've talked about, and the increase and

striking that balance to consumers and with families, with seniors, people who

want to move here.

The

minister mentioned some of the indicators. Well, actually some of the indicators

we look at are the most serious that we've seen over the past year and months is

out-migration. In many cases, those people who are leaving the province are

really – in many cases are young families or single people at a younger age who,

at some point, would want to stay here, we would hope, raise a family and

contribute, work, raise their family here and increase the population.

Unfortunately, initiatives like this, and some of that balance I talked about

when it goes too much the other way, is a disincentive.

Those

young families, where they haven't put down roots – maybe they haven't formed a

partnership or married or had kids yet, when they're looking for opportunities

to go to post-secondary or to look at finding employment, all of it factors into

if an opportunity exists somewhere else. What's the environment here like? Can I

be competitive here as a place I want to raise my family? Can I, from that

perspective – taxation, all of those areas – is that going to allow me to have a

standard of living that I've always desired to have? Certainly, based on their

education as well, can they meet that employment part? So that's why fiscal

policy, like this taxation policy, is so important.

Now, as

well, this government has mentioned they're doing a review of taxation in this

province. That was one of the things they announced some time ago but we haven't

seen that yet. I think that was early in the mandate that was talked about. They

were going to do a taxation review to look at the overall taxation structure.

Now, you

would think that would factor in to all of this because we went through, as I

said, the first budget in 2016 and increased all these taxes, added some new

ones. Then we continued it on in 2017, and pretty well in 2018 with some minor

adjustments. So if you're going to tax review you think you'd do that and look

at the competitive nature of our taxation environment, whether it's personal

income tax, business tax, corporate tax. All of those things and how that puts

us in stead in regard to jurisdictions, in regard to being competitive.

Certainly, corporate investment from all over the world is important.

Over the

last 15 years we've seen tremendous investment in industries in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I think one year it reached $8 billion in regard to overall capital

investment cost. No doubt, that was related to the significant megaprojects we

had and infrastructure, but from that flows a whole array of activities as well,

whether it's the oil and gas sector in regard to supply companies and expertise

in driving that expertise and driving small business. So you can export that

knowledge and knowhow all over the world.

Even

corporate taxation, the business environment, all that is extremely important.

It intertwines with things like we're talking about here today and how that

creates the environment where we want to make sure people want to live, work and

continue to grow our province. Because related to taxation, we all know what our

demographics are like in regard to our aging population. It is probably one of

the fastest aging populations in the country, and what that means in regard to

people retire and come out of the workforce, who's paying taxes, how much taxes

are being paid, and how do you support a society with those demographics.

As we

know, indicators are for health care, as you move down that continuum of 65, 70,

75 years of age, we live longer, but as well the amount that's spent on health

care per individual as that aging process moves along, increases. So if you've

got a population that's far more on that end of the demographic scale in regard

to age and access to health care, all that ties back to taxation and that

balance, and how we can support that.

We need

a growing economy and we need people here that have kids and raise families, but

we also need to attract people, whether it's through our immigration strategy,

through people from other parts of the world, or certainly from other

jurisdictions. And all that collectively brings taxpayers, bring people who

contribute, brings volunteers for our various regions in our province and in all

of our districts that drive our economies, that drive our communities, drive our

regions, drives our cities, drives our towns, and allow people to want to live

and grow.

that's all encompassing. That's why when we talk about a one-off bill of Bill 9

to amend the Revenue Administration Act ,

that's one cog in the wheel of fiscal management, taxation, that needs to be put

in the context of overall ability of people to want to live, stay here, have

expenditures, and be able to meet the requirements of what's required just in

terms of daily living.

I know

all the time I speak to people – I'm sure all of us do – in terms of people in

our district, young families raising kids, of all the various activities,

various sporting activities, music, theatre, all kinds of things they're

involved with that requires cost for them. On the federal side there used to be

a tax credit at one point for kids that were involved in athletics or theatre,

and parents would get somewhat a return on that when they filed their taxation.

That was wiped out by the federal government and now that's no longer there.

Again,

that's taking it away. This here as well, when you put a 15 per cent tax on

insurance, something as fundamental as that, certainly middle-class families – I

know myself I have a son and daughter who both started driving a few years back

and, you know, to ensure them that's taxation that's paid as well, it's extra

dollars to pay by both middle-class families, and certainly for seniors as well,

for their challenges in coming up with those dollars often on a fixed income. So

it'll limit somewhat their activities, and all our activities in what we can do

in the ability to overall function in a society and contribute.

I did

mention choices earlier and how you manage your way through particular

situations. What we've seen this year in regard to the projected cost of a

barrel of oil and where it's to today, I mean I think this administration is

going to see that we may get anywhere close to reducing what was predicted as an

annual deficit. Not to anything this particular government has done, but to the

fact that on the worldwide market when you look at a barrel of oil, what it was

predicted to be and what it it's going to come in as it's just – and you look at

the exchange rate as well, which has been favourable, you could be looking at

anywhere from $300 million to $400 million coming in to the Treasury.

Not any

public policy direction taken by the current administration, but just because,

as I said, the world market and what transpired in regard to oil reserves,

production of various countries and entities around the world. So that allows

some decisions to be made as well in regard to this type of taxation and that

balance again of taking it away and putting money in people's pocket and the

ability to cover it off in other places.

There

were also initiatives taken which haven't been met in this overall fiscal

management. I think originally there were 30 per cent reductions wanted in

agencies, boards and commissions as part of the seven-year fiscal plan of this

current administration. We haven't come close to meeting that, by information

that's been supplied or questions asked here by the minister, which again is a

choice.

If that

was done, then there are other choices you could make in regard to taxation and

how much you tax. A fundamental part of the Canadian federation is equalization,

which we've seen in the past couple of years in the form now that was rolled

over without much commentary from this particular jurisdiction to 2024, I think

it is, and leaves us with no better off than what we had. The fundamental

principle of that is reasonable means of services provided to Canadians at

reasonable level of taxation. So we're not able to avail of that pot or avail of

it on a reasonable level, and you find yourself in a situation where you need to

generate greater revenue to pay for expenses or pay for services you have to dip

into taxation.

If we

had been more active in speaking out on equalization, looking at other

jurisdictions and what's in the overall pot – I think this year in Canada

it's somewhere around $19 billion – 18 and change, I think – and when you look

at various jurisdictions, it's ironic that the parliamentary officer in Ottawa

did a report a little while ago and talked about Nova Scotia and a couple of

jurisdictions and how they were well balanced and well positioned for the

future. But ironically, those same jurisdictions who got that assessment, they

were getting $1.8 billion or $1.6 billion

in equalization they could put right in through the budgetary process, didn't

have to raise taxes to the extreme that we have here in this province and made

their financial picture and their budget process for that particular year and

future years certainly somewhat significant and somewhat – or not somewhat, but

extremely much better in terms of their overall operations.

So,

that's the key component that we haven't heard much here provincially from the

government side or on a federal level. As I said now that's rolled over again,

so that's not an option that can be pursued in regard to the overall fiscal

management plan of this, which is a seven-year plan. I mentioned earlier there

has been commentary from the Auditor General, certainly some with the bond

rating agencies based on the track record of this administration of what they

projected and their expenditures and what that's left them with and whether it's

even conceivable or even possible that we could get to where it's been

demonstrated in '21, '22 in regard to balancing or even getting close to a

surplus.

One of

the things that always bodes well is the many resources we have and the

resourceful people we have. The oil and gas sector has ebbs and flows, but there

is huge reserves off our coast, the Island and Labrador. Certainly our mining

sector has done well, continues – iron ore in Labrador and other deposits, our

gold mining in parts of the province does bode well and gives us opportunity to

manage some of these things through.

Some of

the reserves in oil and gas off our shore – we don't do anything with natural

gas yet. It is something I think we need to look at as we move forward. I think

our Leader of the Official Opposition has talked recently about a Pan-Atlantic

strategy to deal with taking carbon out of the production as the federal

government has indicated needed to be brought out as a means of generating

energy by the mid-20s.

So there

are options there, but we need to certainly dig into those, grasp them and get

an understanding of how we can best drive our economy. It's all intertwined in

our taxation plan and in bills like this, Bill 9. So it's important that we take

that long-term look.

Unfortunately we haven't seen it from this administration, to any great degree,

but we're debating Bill 9 today to look at this. I think we need to lessen the

tax burden on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because we need people to

live and stay here and we need an inviting place to move. With that, we can

drive an economy and we do have the resources and that ebbs and flows with

various industries. We do have a future and, based on all the resources we have,

it can be bright, but we need that strong leadership and direction to get us

there.

So, Mr.

Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 9 and I certainly look

forward to debate.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure for me today to stand in my place and to have a few words on Bill 9,

which is,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

give his remarks and I also listened to the Opposition House Leader give his

remarks on this bill. I just wanted to add a few things.

course, first of all, I want to say this is another indication that we are doing

– we being the present administration – what we said we would do when we

introduced that terrible budget in 2016, and nobody is going to argue that that

wasn't a terrible budget. We certainly know that as well as anybody does, but we

did say at the time, as our financial situation improved we would do things that

would lessen the burden on the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and today

is just another example of us doing that.

Mr.

Speaker, we heard it loud and clear that the tax on automobile insurance needs

to be reduced. Hopefully, if things continue to improve, we can go even further

with that and probably remove it altogether, but that remains to be seen. This

is a good first step, removing 5 per cent of the 15 that currently we have on

automobile insurance. This is a great first move.

Mr.

Speaker, we all know – and it was mentioned by the Opposition Houser Leader –

the ebbs and flows of revenue in the oil and gas sector and mining and all that

could stuff, yes, and that will continue. The fact is when we get the flows we

tend make moves that are certainly beneficial to all the taxpayers, but one

thing we failed to do, and that's plan for the ebbs. That's what has happened

here, Mr. Speaker.

I can

write a book on ebbs and flows in Labrador West with the mining industry,

because if you don't – and the boom times everybody is looking for, all the

benefit from it, and rightly so, but, Mr. Speaker, we have to manage those

expectations. We have to manage and prepare for the future because we know those

booms don't last forever. That's what's happened in this case and that's what

happened in 2015.

When we

took over government we found ourselves in the situation we were in. We

introduced many taxes that we didn't want to introduce but we had to in order to

maintain our fiscal situation within the province. The minister mentioned a

couple. Like the gas tax for instance, that's down now to four cents. The book

tax, which was implemented, that's been removed.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we are making moves and we are doing what we said we would do. On

January 1, 2019, we'll see the first reduction in the automobile insurance tax,

which will continue for the next three to four years. As the minister said, if

the situation improves we can probably see further reductions.

Mr.

Speaker, what this government has been focused on since we took office, we've

focused on two things: basically to reduce our expenditures, but we have to also

find ways to increase our revenues. Unless we increase our revenues, then we

would not be able to continue to provide the services that we do to the citizens

of our province. And we are improving our revenue streams, and the industry is

improving its revenue streams.

The

Opposition House Leader mentioned a couple of things. Mining, for instance; when

we took office mining was in doldrums. Iron ore – and I'll use iron ore because

that's what I'm familiar with. Iron ore was $40 a ton. Today, Mr. Speaker, that

same ton of iron ore is now $78. So, yes, the industry is improving, and as the

industry improves we see production improve. We see mines reopening and we see

new mines that are on the verge of looking for their capital to reopen.

I know,

Mr. Speaker, you're quite familiar with the gold mining, and it's no different.

No matter what the metal is or what the type of metal is, it's the same story.

We all have our ups and downs.

We see

the improvement, Mr. Speaker, in aquaculture. The big announcement on the Burin

Peninsula that will improve revenue streams for not only the Burin Peninsula,

but for the whole province. You know, when you talk about putting things forward

in this House, there are still people in this House who do not agree with that

project, but that will provide jobs and provide revenue for this province.

The oil

and gas sector, Mr. Speaker, the Advance

2030 , it's real. It's not a fantasy story, it's real, and things are

happening within that to prove that it's real.

Agriculture; again, we see the Member for Mount Pearl North talk about

agriculture. It is improving. Revenues are improving and we are seeing more

farmers than we ever did.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we are doing great things for this province, and all those things will

help improve our revenue streams and we'll be able maybe next year go to 10 per

cent reduction on the automobile insurance. I hope we do; but, Mr. Speaker, we

are committed today to 5 per cent –

MR. OSBORNE:

Minimum.

MR. LETTO:

Minimum of 5 per cent.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we are putting our money where our mouth is and we are making moves.

Next year we'll see the levy be reduced and taken away.

So, Mr.

Speaker, yes, we did take over an awful mess, and we introduced some hard

measures in 2016 but we are making progress.

The IT

sector, we've only scratched the surface of the IT sector as proof. Well,

anyway, we are improving the IT sector, Mr. Speaker, and there's more to come.

Like I said, we've only barely scratched the surface of that one.

The

Opposition House Leader mentioned something about a balanced approach. And, you

know what, I totally agree because that's what it's all about.

Mr.

Speaker, at the time when we saw our revenues down and we had to take those

measures, we were able to maintain some of the highest investment ever in

municipal infrastructure, for instance, in roads in this province. We've seen

record investment. So we've been able, despite the challenges we've had in our

economy, we've been able to maintain good services. We've improved in many cases

and we will continue to do that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd be the first one to stand here today and say we didn't do it alone.

Absolutely not, absolutely not. Because we have great co-operation with our

federal government that's been allowed to provide funds that we've been able to

partner with to provide the services that is much needed in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we talk about attracting business, and everybody – again, the

Opposition House Leader mentioned about attracting business. Mr. Speaker, we are

attracting business. There are new people coming to our province, especially in

the oil and gas sector, in the IT sector and, yes, Mr. Speaker, in the new

industry of cannabis.

Now, as

in anything, people tend to forget. You listen to people talk about we're out of

product and it's only happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's not true,

Mr. Speaker. It's happening right across the country. This was the biggest

policy shift in Canadian history. The biggest policy shift in Canadian history

when we legalized cannabis, and I guess it's hard to determine – when you're

going into a new industry, it's hard to predict what that industry will look

like the first day, the second day, the first week, the second week.

Mr.

Speaker, yes, we've had our challenges, and the industry has had its challenges,

but we will improve. It will get to a point where there will be a steady supply

right across the country, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador. So that's an

industry that we have to benefit from, that we will benefit from. It has its

growing pains, like any other industry that's new.

As I

said, cannabis legalization is the biggest policy shift in Canadian history. We

can argue maybe history will not be kind to us that we weren't prepared for this

shift, and maybe they're right, but we don't throw out the baby with the

bathwater. We work with industry to ensure that we do have a continuous supply

and the people of our province will be able to have access when they need to.

So, Mr.

Speaker, this bill is much more than the 5 per cent coming off automobile

insurance. This is an indication, this is a sign of things to come that we are

going to put money back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as

soon as our fiscal situation allows us to do that. And we've proven that. We've

proven that in the last two years. We've proven it with the gas tax, we've

proven it with the book tax, we've proven it with the levy and we'll continue to

work with our people, to work with industry, to work with business to be able to

be in a position that we can continue to reduce the tax burden on our citizens.

Mr.

Speaker, again, we have to make sure that when we do these things that we're

looking to the future, that we do it with a balanced approach and that we don't

put ourselves in a situation where next year or the year or the year after that

we'll have to put it back on.

We have

to make sure it's sustainable, and that's the key to all of this. That's what

we've failed to do in the past. We've done things in the past that weren't

sustainable. We weren't prepared for the downturns. We spent like drunken

sailors, Mr. Speaker – we spent like drunken sailors. But we have to be in a

position where we can start giving back to the people when we can fiscally

afford to do so, and that's exactly what we're doing as the government. That's

why we're here today debating another benefit for the people of this province.

Because automobile insurance is just one example of what has happened and what

will happen in the future.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it's good news when you can stand in your place today and talk about

tax reduction starting in January 1, 2019. But, as I said, we can't do something

today that we'll have to reverse again tomorrow, and that's where we are. That's

why we're taking the balanced approach. That's why it's only 2 per cent in 2019,

1 per cent in 2020, 1 per cent in 2021 and 1 per cent in 2022. As I said, and as

the Minister of Finance said, if our fiscal situation allows us to do better

than that, then we will, Mr. Speaker.

So, on

that note, I will take my place and be very pleased to support Bill 9 as it goes

through the House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to stand to have a few words on this bill because I was a part of it back

when it came in, Mr. Speaker, and I definitely do not want to try to shy away

from it, that I was a part of it. I agree with what the Member for Lab West

said. I heard the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker, and there are a few

comments I'd like to make about what he was saying also.

There's

absolutely no doubt that in 2015 it was a tough budget; 2016, it was a tough

budget – absolutely no doubt. I know I was there – I'm going back probably now

two or three months ago, probably four months ago, when I was doing an

announcement of the Small Communities Fund. MP Ken McDonald got up, had a few

words.

I just

want the people of the province to hear what MP Ken McDonald said at the time,

Mr. Speaker. He said when he first got in as the MP – and he went up in 2015,

late 2015 – he had a briefing. The briefing was on the funding for capital works

programs for Newfoundland and Labrador. It's striking what he said. I knew it

and I'd been saying it, but Ken McDonald stated this publicly to the media. In

2015 when he got the briefing, the only province in Canada that never spent one

cent of over $300 million that was there was Newfoundland and Labrador.

Do you

know why? Because we never had one penny to put towards the funding to leverage

the $300 million dollars; that's the financial state this province was in, Mr.

Speaker. That's the financial state – and I know the Member for Ferryland was

just up there talking about all these things that we should have done, we could

have done. Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I'll say it again: There was a

$34.6 million Small Communities Fund sitting on his desk that he never signed

because we never had a cent to go towards it.

I have

no problem with him saying that I was a part of that budget, Mr. Speaker. I have

to say that through the province and the way we worked through things, and the

way we managed the finances, we did make some tough decisions, Mr. Speaker, and

I went out publicly and I said yeah, we had to do it.

Mr.

Speaker, do you know at the time in 2015 when we started the budget in 2016, the

deficit was up to $2.7 billion – $2.7 billion? I just want to let the people of

the province know. If you want to talk about dishonesty in government, the

easiest thing for this government opposite, easiest thing for the Liberal

government to do today if they wanted to balance the books next year, do you

know what they got to do? Put it in their budget that oil is going to be $95 and

they'll say oh, we got a balanced budget because here's what we're projecting,

with absolutely no truth or fact to it.

What the

PC government did at the time, Mr. Speaker, in 2015 – I just want people to know

this because I don't back away from what happened in 2015. In 2015 for the 2016

fiscal year, they had oil at $83 a barrel. I don't know if it went past $55.

That's what we were faced with. I hear Members opposite talking about capital

works, oh, you know, we can't get enough funding; there's not enough funding.

What do

you expect –?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

I say to the Member for St.

John's North: We're not on the same side; no, Sir, I would never let Muskrat

Falls go through and ruin the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm not on

your side. There's not a chance I would ever stand up and let Muskrat Falls go

through and some people would say that we didn't know the difference. We were

all hoodwinked into it. I'm not with that Tory Party, Mr. Speaker.

Remember

one thing, I was a Liberal; I'll die a Liberal, Mr. Speaker. I will die with the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will not put them in that financial

burden, so don't ever say the Member for St. John's North –

AN HON. MEMBER:

No, Mount Pearl North.

MR. JOYCE:

– Mount Pearl North that I'm

on your side now because I'm over here, not a chance. It will not happen because

the people are going to have enough, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE:

So, Mr. Speaker, I thought

heckling was supposed to stop here. I thought heckling was suppose to stop but I

guess not when the truth kind of hits home.

I got to

say to the new Leader of the PC Party: I know when you were running – and I

understand politics, Sir – I hope you're going to stand in this place, with all

these constituencies down – I never tried to hide a thing. I know your politics

and I know it's politics; but, Sir, I hope someday you'll stand up and say that

you did it for politics and not making accusations that I was trying to hide

something, hide the reports. It's just not true. It's not true.

I'm a

firm believer, let's speak the facts – whatever the facts are because I do have

a family, I do have friends and when it's put out there, Sir, that I'm hiding

the report, it's just basically not true.

So I

just ask that someday that you confirm that that was just rhetoric during

politics, and I accept that, but it just never happened. I say to the Leader of

the Opposition, it just never happened.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll just get back to – just talking about the capital works programs,

how we leveraged the federal money and now the towns and municipalities are very

happy with it.

The

Minister of Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker, I got a few words about him.

This is something that I've seen for years when we were in Opposition, that we

tried to fight for ourselves. When you get through some kind of a political

election or close to election, what you do is you go to each district and say,

okay, let's put a kilometre here, let's put a kilometre over here so everybody –

let's get a few votes.

What the

minister did, and the former minister did, Mr. Speaker, is they said let's do it

right. Let's go on priority, let's go on priority. Because we're on priority

instead of just going off for political reasons, we did what was necessary and

we did what they call the bucking; you know, a lot of the costs that come

mobilization, demobilization.

When you

do bucking, instead of doing a thousand yards you do a spot; six, seven, eight

miles which is the necessity. Mr. Speaker, because of that in the last couple of

years, and I'm proud I was a part of it – the last couple of years they got over

33 per cent more pavement done than previously with the same amount of money. So

that's the kind of things.

There is

something I'm going to speak about that I spoke about, and it's a bit close to

my heart, Mr. Speaker, is the hospital in Corner Brook and the long-term care

facility. That was promised back in 2007. There are probably about eight, 10

commitments made there. I know the Members opposite here, the PC Party, I'd say

they ran about two or three elections on it. I know in 2011 the tractors were up

there rolling around, Sir, moving the dirt from one side to the other with

absolutely nothing done.

remember coming in the House, it was Tom Hedderson who was the minister of

Transportation and Works, and I asked him about the design. Tom Hedderson, I got

to give him credit, he spoke up and said, I'll be honest with you, he said,

there wasn't even a pre-design done. And here was the big announcement out in

Corner Brook with the election, 2011, tractors moving dirt from one side to the

other.

Mr.

Speaker, I know there was a staffer that helped a lot, too, when we were in

Opposition, and I pushed for the hospital in Corner Brook. I know the Member for

Corner Brook, he was an MP at the time, he was behind us, too. He helped us all,

too. And I know the Premier was committed to it also.

But

guess what? There was no rhetoric. Once we got in, Mr. Speaker, we sat down and

we rolled up our sleeves and we said we made this commitment, let's find a way

to make it work. If anybody ever went around that site now and looked at the

long-term care, you see what an improvement. It's on track to be finished and

open probably next year.

I can

tell you, when you get 130 seniors that are going to move in that now, at the

end of their life and have their dignity, that is why when we took over we made

commitments that we lived through, even with the financial strain we had. It is

great for the people of Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland, great for the

seniors.

The

Waterford Hospital is another one. The Premier made that a priority, Mr.

Speaker, and this government – the government opposite made that a priority.

Guess what? That's going to be done; that's going to be done. And I have to say,

that's a great initiative.

So when

you stand up and say, yes, it was financial times for the government – and I was

a part of it. The hospital in Corner Brook, and I know I spoke about this on

many occasions and I'll continue to speak about it, because I can tell you, when

we're all moved on from this hon. House, when we all move –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I must

remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill. We are talking about the

Revenue Administration Act with regard

to the tax on insurance. So I'd ask the Member to stay relevant.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) with the revenue

tax, if we didn't do what we did back in 2015 for this tax, we wouldn't be able

to do the things we're doing now. That's why it's relevant. We would not have

the funds to put towards it. So that's why it's relevant, Mr. Speaker. I

understand and I respect your opinion, but that's why it's relevant. The

decisions we made then for the seniors and the people of this province, that's

why we had to do it, and that's the relevancy toward it.

Mr.

Speaker, the biggest part of all that was so