PDF Version

April 11, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 43

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Labrador West, Harbour Main, St. John’s

Centre, Topsail - Paradise and Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I’m

proud to recognize Mr. Michael Martin, Labrador’s first home-born MHA. Mr.

Martin represented the electoral District of Labrador South from 1972 to 1975

and is known for designing the Labrador flag in 1974.

This

past week, Labrador celebrated the 48th anniversary of the Labrador flag

officially being introduced here in the House of Assembly, actually. In 1973,

Michael Martin, along with Members of the Labrador brotherhood club, designed

the flag that fully represents Labrador.

Mike and

his wife made 64 flags and sent them to 59 communities in Labrador and one each

for the three Labrador Members of the House of Assembly on March 31, 1974.

The

Labrador flag has been celebrated ever since March 31. Labrador Flag Day is the

day that we, as Labradorians, celebrate our uniqueness in the Big Land and the

different people and cultures that call that place home.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Mr. Martin and everyone involved in creating

and designing the Labrador flag 48 years ago. It will remain a statement of

identity for all Labradorians for years to come.

With

leave, I want to mention that Mr. Martin is currently ill and I ask the House

also to send him some good wishes as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I am

honoured to stand here today to speak of a 17-year-old young woman from Upper

Gullies in the District of Harbour Main. Ms. Lauren Rowe has demonstrated

excellence as an elite soccer player in this province and across Canada.

Often

described as having generational talent as an athlete, Lauren, in her young

life, has achieved many prestigious and honourable recognitions such as: the

Newfoundland Soccer Association Player of the Year for 2018, 2019 and 2021;

Lauren played with the Jubilee Cup league, the top senior women’s league in

Newfoundland and Labrador, leading the league in goal scoring; as team captain

she led her school, Queen Elizabeth Regional High, to its first provincial

soccer championship in 23 years. She’s been named as MVP, Rookie of the Year and

the Golden Boot, to name a few titles.

Lauren

has been chosen as a training player for Canada’s national under 20 women’s

soccer team, vying to qualify for the coveted World Cup in Costa Rica this

August.

I ask

all Members to join me in recognizing Lauren Rowe for her extraordinary

achievements in soccer. This young woman is a star athlete for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to watch and be proud of.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John’s Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Jimmy Carter said “Whether the borders that divide us are picket fences

or national boundaries, we are all neighbours in a global community.”

While the war in Ukraine has shaken the world, Grade 2 student Georgiy

Dragan and the Lakecrest Independent School community demonstrate the importance

of being good global neighbours and citizens.

Recently, Georgiy Dragan and his parents, Adilya and Fedor, who are from

Ukraine, organized a medical supplies drive to collect donations for friends and

family back home. Thanks to this, over 3,000 pounds of goods were shipped to the

Ukraine through the Red Cross. While the majority of donations were much needed

medical supplies, the school also sent clothing, school supplies and other

non-perishables. Students, families, teachers, and staff organized fundraisers,

decorated the school’s windows in blue and yellow and put up displays throughout

the building.

Principal Patrick Boekhoud believes that, as an international school, Lakecrest

has a duty to be a good global neighbour. The Dragan family is extremely proud

of the school community’s support in helping their friends, family and others

still in Ukraine.

I ask

Members to join me in honouring the Dragan family and the Lakecrest school

community for helping their neighbours in Ukraine.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Speaker, today I pay tribute

to a well-known Paradise soccer coach, volunteer and friend to many who passed

away as a result of a tragic accident just eight days ago.

Brad

Kerrivan was a devoted and loving father to his son, Colton, and family was

always his top priority. It was common to see Brad at the rink or soccer field

with Colton, and he would play his guitar for Colton at night as he fell asleep.

Brad

will be remembered as that guy with the big smile on his face, so easy to deal

with and one who made everyone around him better. He loved a good party and was

nicknamed “Chili Man” because he always brought a big pot of chili to

gatherings. Whatever he took on, he did so with passion and energy to see it

through, volunteering and participating in many activities in Paradise and

throughout the community.

Brad was

42 years old. Someone once told me life is not measured in the number of years

but in how you live those years. Brad made the most of his years.

thoughts and prayers go out to Dwan, Colton, Barbara, Alice, Jenine, Joey and

Leala and his family.

Although

the song is ended, the melody lives on.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I stand

to recognize a family man, exceptional physician, community leader and dedicated

volunteer from my district. I speak of the late Dr. Walter Tucker. Walter spent

over four decades caring for the residents of Bell Island, while becoming a

community leader with a number of organizations and served as the community’s

mayor.

Whether

inside the clinic or at a town event, he served his beloved community in every

way. The residents of Bell Island treasured their long-term doctor who did it

all from delivering babies, making house calls and treating everything from

colds to complicated illnesses, but, most of all, he was there to simply lend a

confident and comforting ear. Walter in his quiet way was happiest when he was

helping people.

It was

widely said that Walter didn’t deliver Bell Island babies; he gently charmed

infants into the world with his infectious smile and relaxed, engaging

personality.

Even

after leaving Bell Island to live next to the Clovelly golf course to take up

his second passion of playing golf, Walter continued to travel to Bell Island

daily to ensure residents of the island received quality health care.

I ask

all Members of this House to join me in passing on our condolences to his wife

Marian and family.

Rest in

peace, my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador’s annual award winners.

These

awards recognize the outstanding tourism leaders and businesses that make

valuable contributions to the province’s tourism industry.

Sullivan’s Songhouse received the Cultural Tourism Award and Kathi Stacey

received the Tourism Achievement Award. Both of these awards are sponsored by

the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

Located

on the Southern Shore of the Avalon Peninsula, Sullivan’s Songhouse welcomes

people in a traditional biscuit-box house, twice a week, to celebrate the rich

tradition of storytelling and song. Just like a traditional kitchen party, host

Sean Sullivan, accompanied by friends and fellow musicians, encourages visitors

to participate and give a song, if they are so inclined.

Positioning Eastern Newfoundland as a leader in sustainable tourism and a

premier destination for travellers, Kathi Stacey created a sense of local pride

with her My Town television program. She is responsible for the Legendary Coasts

of Eastern Newfoundland partnership with St. Pierre et Miquelon, a new and

never-before-seen partnership that has been an amazing success for both the

French islands and Eastern Newfoundland.

Other

notable recipients this year’s awards include Kilmory Resort, Grates Cove

Studios, Perchance Theatre, Rugged Edge, E.C. Boone Limited, George House

Heritage Bed and Breakfast, Fishing for Success, and Ann Simmons.

Please

join me in congratulating them on their remarkable achievements. They are all

shining examples of the quality of our tourism operations in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, in the Official

Opposition would like to congratulate Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador

award winners, who have dedicated themselves to ensuring our tourism industry

continues to flourish in these challenging economic times.

These

last three years have provided many obstacles for these businesses and tourism

leaders to overcome. To all the award winners – Sullivan’s Songhouse, Kathi

Stacey, Kilmory Resort, Grates Cove Studios, Perchance Theatre, Rugged Edge,

E.C. Boone Limited, George House Heritage Bed and Breakfast, Fishing for

Success, and Ann Simmons – we salute you all for your fortitude and belief in

this great province we call home. We wish you continued success as you all push

the bar higher and higher in our tourism operation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We share

in the excitement of the tourism industry, as they get ready for the upcoming

2022 season. We encourage the government to introduce supports to help them and

their staff by implementing paid sick days so that those with increased exposure

to COVID, due to the tourism industry, have stability and they can help contain

the spread by staying home when they are sick and they can still make their

bills.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Are there any further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

federal Liberals failed to increase the amount of money given to the provinces

for health care spending in the budget. The federal Liberals promised increases

in health transfers, specifically mental health, and the Premier failed to

secure an agreement for this year’s budget.

Is the

Premier disappointed in his federal friends?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you for the opportunity to speak about the CHT.

What I

will say we did do, in terms of an agreement for Newfoundland and Labrador, was

Bay du Nord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

So I think there is no

question that we are incredibly interested in continuing discussions with the

federal government on the CHT. It is something that the premiers meet about

regularly. I, of course, have a strong voice at the premiers’ table with respect

to health care. We know the importance of mental health. I think the CMHT is an

incredible opportunity to guide mental health well into the future, beyond any

governments, by assuming it has a transfer payment, Mr. Speaker.

Rest

assured, we will continue to fight on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

and, indeed, all Canadians to ensure that the federal government continues to

increase the CHT, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

commend the Premier and all Members of this House of Assembly for diligently

lobbying to ensure that the Bay du Nord Project went forward. It is great for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – needed. And it is our future and it

should have been approved much earlier than it was but that doesn’t help the

need for our health care on the Connaigre Peninsula, Central Newfoundland or

anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador. That has to be a partnership with

the federal government; they need to step up to the plate on this case.

Canadian

premiers have expressed their disappointment. Despite the efforts of

hard-working health care professionals, health care in the province is broken.

There is no other way to describe it. The Health Accord called for additional

health care investments by the federal government.

Will you

follow the advice of the Health Accord and increase health care investments or

will you follow the advice from Moya Greene and slash health care by 25 per

cent?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

we have said many times on this side of the House that we’re not interested in

slashing health care. We’re interested in reinventing, reimagining health care

to ensure that it is delivering the services that people need. I know the system

is broken; I worked in the system. I understand how complex it is and how

stressed and strained the people and the patients, frankly, are within that

system.

But what

we have been doing to date is not working. Continuing to invest in an old

paradigm and old systems that aren’t driving the quality assurance, the quality

results that we need, is frankly reverting to the mean. It may be easy politics

to continue to argue for that, but that’s not what we’re about. We’re about

reinventing and reimagining a health care system that is the future for people

in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s

interesting that we talk about reimagining. That doesn’t help the 100,000

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who don’t have a health care professional to go

to tomorrow when they have an ailment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Additional investments are

needed for the Health Accord, and the document is clear. Additional money is

also needed to improve wait times, give nurses and doctors some relief, and to

finally make sure everyone has a family doctor.

I ask

the Premier: After seven years in government, the health care system continues

to suffer; will you admit your minister has not done his job?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While it

feels like seven years, it’s only been a few years for me.

We’re

ensuring that we’re advancing that CHT. The Member opposite is quite correct. A

large proportion of this financial responsibility lies with the federal

government, which is why we’re at the table continuing to discuss with the prime

minister and with other ministers to ensure that they understand the importance

of the CHT for patients, Mr. Speaker.

We are

continuing to invest. In fact, over the last couple of years, we have increased

the expenditure in health care by $400 million, Mr. Speaker. We’re continuing to

make sure we invest, but we’re not going to invest in old paradigms. We want to

make sure that we are investing smartly, prudently to drive the outcomes that

people need in this province, not the continued spending as has been in the

past, which produces poor results, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

With

100,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without a family physician, closures of

emergency rooms, overworked doctors, nurses, paramedics and all other health

professionals here, and an exodus of health professionals in Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, it’s time. Premier, you’re the manager of your team. It’s

time you looked at the coach and made some changes here to improve health care

for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, extraordinary

situations need extraordinary measures. Our seniors, our families, our students

for several months there have been skyrocketing fuel costs, food at record

levels and your answer is change is in the air.

I ask

the Premier: Why didn’t you spare some change and put it in the people’s

pockets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe that when the Minister of Finance presented the budget she articulated

just that. Just prior to the budget, Mr. Speaker, and during budget, this

government has looked to put money back into the pockets of people in this

province. Every province – globally, in fact, people are facing tough times

because of supply shortages, because of fuel prices. But we’ve eliminated the

sales tax on insurance. We’ve reduced the cost of registering a vehicle to 50

per cent. Mr. Speaker, the early learning and child care $42-million investment

by government is saving families thousands of dollars every year; free Metrobus

passes for people on income support, seniors and youth in care.

The list

goes on, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Any of

those issues that have been outlined there do very little to keep people warm in

their homes, put food on their table and ensure that they’re going to have a

quality of life in the near future.

Speaker,

the Liberal government told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have

weathered the storm and the fog is lifting. Well, Minister, people on the

Connaigre Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula and every other corner of this

province are calling MHAs begging for help with food prices, fuel costs and to

help their community secure a family doctor.

I ask

the Premier: Does it sound like the storm has lifted to you?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, this government

is working hard to help businesses in the province keep people employed. We are

working hard to expand the economy. We are working hard to pay down the deficit.

One of

the things we did was the increase in the Income Supplement, a $7-million

investment by government; an increase in the Seniors’ Benefit, almost a

$7-million investment by government. That puts money in the pockets of people.

We did an increase for those on income support, a $5-million investment by

government.

Everybody in this country, everybody globally is feeling the pinch, Mr. Speaker,

but we are stepping up to the plate and putting money where it counts, back into

the pockets of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

Again,

lots of words around reimagining and all I could think of is imagine the people

who have no family physician, because they’re real, they’re experiencing that

now. Imagine the people who have to actually pay to see a health care provider

in this province. Imagine the people who have no relief at the pumps.

Last

week, in an effort to cover up their failure to address the cost of living in

the province, the minister released a graphic targeted at low-income earners.

I’ve been contacted, as well as my colleagues, by many people who are insulted

at this graphic, noting that the numbers contained in the graphic just do not

represent reality.

I ask

the minister: Will you apologize to the people of the province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

There

are various scenarios, Speaker, on family compositions and on family income

compositions as well. One of the things that was tried here was a snapshot on

how Budget 2022 helps those in this

province in need. We’ve put over $142 million back into the pockets of people in

this province.

The

graphic was an indication or a snapshot of how government is trying to assist

people within the province, Mr. Speaker. We certainly won’t apologize for trying

to help people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, to cite an

example of just how out of touch this government is with those struggling in

poverty, this graphic assumed low-income parents would have money enough to

spend on physical activity – $1,000 a year. That’s what this graphic outlined.

One day

after the budget was released the minister herself said she was, quote,

investigating the numbers.

So I ask

the minister: Was she misinformed or was she misinforming?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

You

know, that’s very unfortunate to hear the Member opposite say those types of

words. This government, as I’ve said, has worked hard to keep money into the

pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask

the Member opposite: The Metrobus passes that we’re providing to those on income

support, to the seniors on the Guaranteed Income Supplement and youth –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

T. OSBORNE:

– in the province, Mr.

Speaker, who are in care, is that something that he would take away? The $37.8

million on vehicle insurance, which is money that goes directly back into the

pockets of people in this province, Mr. Speaker, is that something that he’d

take away? The one-time benefit for income support, would he take that away?

I am

asking the Member: What would you have done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I am only going to be too happy, when we sit on that side of the House,

to tell them exactly how we will do things, as a minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, the only change in

the air is spare change.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM:

Love is in the air. COVID is

in the air. But the only thing for the people, when it comes to relief about

their fuel tanks and the high cost of fuel, that’s blowing in the wind.

I ask

the minister: How will this budget help people fill their fuel tanks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, we all saw what

that party sitting on that side of the House did. It’s part of the reason I left

that party, Mr. Speaker, because they put this province in a mess. They put this

province in a mess. You look at the one project, Muskrat Fall, Mr. Speaker, and

the investment by this government and the federal government to ensure that

electricity rates wouldn’t double. No, we don’t want you guys in government

again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Now I’ve

got that tune, the answers are blowing in the wind, in my head.

Speaker,

information is key to improve health care, including involving front-line

stakeholders and those with lived experience. That’s critical. Our province is

receiving more than $27 million in federal funding as a result of Bill C-17.

What is

government doing to ensure the best use of these additional health care dollars?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I would

certainly concur with the Member’s

preamble about lived experience and

front-line workers. The Premier and myself participated in a think tank last

week with the Registered Nurses’ Union and found it extremely informative.

Our

proposals around that money are under development. In the meantime, our focus is

on ensuring that people in hallways on stretchers, get beds; that nurses get

relief from the pressure that they have been under; they get some holidays and

some vacation; and that we refocus our energies to deal with the acute situation

with regard to those people who are acutely ill at the moment.

That,

and in the background, lurks COVID.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

After

many months of talking about a crisis and people in hallways, I’m glad you’re

starting to realize it.

When it

comes to the federal funding programs, there is an unfair distribution of funds.

Newfoundland and Labrador has the oldest population, the highest instance of

chronic illness, a lower life expectancy, declining population and geographic

challenges.

Health

care transfers based on per capita formulas is the least beneficial to

Newfoundland and Labrador. What discussion has the Premier had with the prime

minister to address, not just an increase in these funds but a more equitable

formula?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you for the question.

It’s a

good one and it’s one that I’ve raised with the prime minister. The per capita

formula actually helps Alberta differentially and is punishing Newfoundland and

Labrador.

If you

look at the cost of when people actually consume health care in their lives, of

course, it’s the older population. So the per capita formula doesn’t work in my

opinion.

That

will be the choice of the prime minister in a discussion point at the table, but

I can certainly guarantee you that I share your view, Sir, and I’ve made it loud

and clear at the federal table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It’s

great to hear the Premier mention the seniors.

The

Official Opposition here has been receiving a flurry of calls from people who

can’t access a family doctor in this province. One particular group, seniors,

are being forced to give up their driving because they can’t get the medical

that is required for them at age 75 to 80 and every two years after.

I ask

the Premier: What does he say to healthy seniors that are now forced to give up

their driving because they don’t have access to a family doctor?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Access

to primary care providers, including nurse practitioners who can also deal with

the driver’s medical issue, is top of our mind. We realized that additional

resources would be needed and last year we invested $30 million, prior to the

budget, in a targeted recruitment strategy and that is evolving. We are in the

processes of hiring an assistant deputy minister. We have rebooted our marketing

campaign to take things on the national stage.

The

programs announced under that have started to attract new physicians, and I

noticed one has arrived in Green Bay within the last week or so. These

challenges continue and we will continue to work through them. There’s another

$14 million in this budget to help deal with that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

money the minister spoke to, some of that’s going towards these collaborative

care units. I heard a story earlier today of individuals who could not access

the Collaborative Team Clinic at Mundy Pond this past Saturday.

Minister, you’ve continued to say these team-based clinics will improve access

to primary care, yet people are having trouble seeing a doctor.

I ask

the minister: Why are these collaborative teams not working?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would take

issue with the assumption in that statement. The Collaborative Team Clinics in

St. John’s have been extremely well received. At least 9,000 people have

registered and now have primary care from the teams that we established in

metro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE:

There are more teams to come.

There are teams to be set up in Central and Western and we allocated $2 million

each for collaborative teams in those areas. Labrador-Grenfell is working on

those. Patient Connect NL will open up to allow registration for Central, for

Western before the end of spring, Mr. Speaker. We are making progress and we

continue to invest in primary care.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Speaker, there are

obvious serious problems with access to primary care, and we’re hearing it from

individuals like in the clinic at Mundy Pond.

Speaker,

the most recent violence prevention plan concluded in 2019. While initiatives

like the Domestic Violence Help Line are helpful, a comprehensive plan is

needed, which includes education and prevention efforts, supports for victims of

violence, enforcement activities and healing supports.

I ask

the minister: When will a new long-term violence prevention plan be released?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

thank my hon. colleague for always raising these issues. They are indeed very

important, and I appreciate every bit of attention that they get.

I’m

happy to say that there were absolutely no cuts or decreases to the budget for

the Office of Women and Gender Equality. I also want to thank community for

their

part in what they do at Women Centres, violence prevention, equality

seeking. And $3.2 million of the budget, of course, goes to helping community

and violence prevention initiatives, not to mention all the legislative changes

that we’ve seen here since 2015 in this House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Speaker, that answer

ignored my question. Again, I need to understand: When will a new long-term

violence prevention plan be released? Not only have they failed to release this

violence prevention plan that is fulsome, advocates are still waiting on the

evaluation of the former violence prevention plan.

So,

Minister: Can you please table the follow-up and evaluation report, which was

completed on this important initiative?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, again, Mr.

Speaker, and I, again, thank my hon. colleague.

A new

initiative that we’ve introduced, actually, the Premier’s Roundtable on Gender

Equity, we’ve had two meetings to date and I’m happy to say that the funding to

support those meetings will continue. As a matter of fact, we just talked about

this in my department just earlier today. We’re hoping to launch the third one

this fall. That brings experts, people with lived experience, communities from

across Newfoundland and Labrador to come and talk about these very important

initiatives across the board.

again, the conversation continues with community, across government there are a

number of initiatives. I also open the door; the hon. Member is certainly

welcome to come over and have a meeting with me and to join in with this work at

any time.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

What we need is full

comprehensive plan. Is there a new plan? Where is it? We need to understand why

this plan has not been evaluated and we have no idea if there’s a new plan. And

the lack of a violence prevention plan is resulting in the decline of

preventative and responsive programs available.

So I ask

the minister: Will you commit to holding effective and meaningful consultations

with advocates and organizations so that a plan can truly help reduce domestic

violence in our province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

applaud the Member for continuing to keep these issues, of course, at the

forefront. Again, a very successful round table, the Premier’s Roundtable on

Gender Equity, is doing exactly that, bringing communities together in one room

from one side of this province to the other, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, $3.2 million in violence prevention. We’re always open to doing

everything that we can to improve, not to mention the valuable programs and

initiatives that are found across government in the Department of Justice and

Public Safety, as well as Children, Seniors and Social Development, and of

course the Office of Women and Gender Equality.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

as the procurement process for the new penitentiary moves forward, every company

except one has pulled out of the process, privately citing an unfair playing

field that favours one company with close Liberal ties. No point in bidding, I

was told.

What

protection is the government going to offer taxpayers if it is turning another

blank cheque to their Liberal friends?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you for the question.

I know

the Member is quite obsessed when it comes to Liberal supporters and all that

stuff, but the real issue here is a new correctional facility that is badly

needed. I’m not going to take the advice of the Member opposite to delay it for

another three years, because it is badly needed and that would be unfair to the

inmates, families and the workers.

We, as a

government, yes, we understand there is one proponent, we have confidence in

that proponent and we’ll be doing our due diligence when it comes to achieving

that project moving forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I remind

the minister, one thing I am obsessed with is how we spend our public monies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN:

Speaker, blank cheque.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

B. PETTEN:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

I have

been here long enough to know when you hit a nerve that the chirping starts, so

obviously I am on a nerve.

Speaker,

blank cheque, cost plus, send us a bill when you’re done, are words every

contractor loves to here. Why does one company that donated tens of thousands of

dollars to the Premier’s leadership campaign and the Liberal Party have the

inside track?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

tell you one thing I’m not going to do is take advice from him on how to spend

money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker, I’ll still go to

the importance of this issue and that is a new HMP which is badly needed for the

inmates, the families and the workers. We will do due diligence on this file and

we look forward to cutting the ribbon eventually on that building that is badly

needed in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I think

the minister should realize he is Minister to the Crown for everyone in this

province in that department. The monies he spends are important to every one of

us, including me.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN:

Speaker, I remind the

minister the new mental health and addictions centre is being constructed for

$39 million more than the next lowest bid and will take a year longer to build.

Given

the mess in Central Newfoundland with long-term care facilities, why is the

minister forging ahead with another process that will only reward Liberal

friends?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll

stick to what’s important here, Mr. Speaker, and that is the need for a new HMP

for the inmates, for the families and for the workers. We’re proud of that and

we’re going to do the due diligence on this file and, as I said before, we look

forward to what this facility will hold and the services that it will provide to

those inmates, families and workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker

Speaker,

what they need to realize is it’s a flawed process. It’s a licence to print

money, how’s that? That’s really what’s going on here.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Move to

the question, please.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

we still don’t know who owns the mysterious numbered company –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, once again,

Speaker.

I must

be still stepping on that nerve, I guess.

We still

don’t know who owns that mysterious numbered company that is the only

(inaudible) that will make millions on the failed Canopy Growth deal.

Again,

why does the minister believe taxpayers can get value for money when there’s

only one bidder and no transparency and no competition?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

In terms

of numbered companies, a company can have as a name, a number or any other name.

That information of shareholders is not collected by the province, which is

comparable to most other provinces.

Mr.

Speaker, as of April 1, changes to the

Corporations Act came into force where we increased the disclosure

requirements that companies have to keep a list of all their beneficial

shareholders so that they can make it available to law enforcement.

There’s

no difference between having a number for a company or having a name for a

company. It’s the same as most provinces in Canada.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

staffing levels in our Nain clinic have been stretched beyond the breaking

point. Nurses are struggling to get badly needed leave. They’re burnt out. Now

we’re hearing that the Nain clinic will be losing two nursing positions.

Will the

minister confirm this is not the case and commit to maintaining staffing levels

all across Labrador until the Health Accord implementation program is released

and debated in this House of Assembly?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Certainly, we have had challenges with staffing, and continue to work as hard as

we can to support our front-line health care workers. I’m not aware of any

staffing changes in the wind in Nain, or indeed in any of the other facilities

across Labrador or the Island.

I can

certainly look into it for the Member and will be happy to get back to her at an

early opportunity.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Speaker, the president of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has been very vocal about our

health care in this province. I quote: “The NLMA is calling on the provincial

government to immediately implement a plan to rescue rural health care centres

that are in crisis.”

But we

see this budget cherry-pick pieces from the Health Accord to satisfy the cuts

called for by Moya Greene, making decisions to save money without solving our

health care crisis is adding to the stress of our health care workers who were

already overworked before the pandemic.

I ask

the minister: Will he present a plan for the re-imaging of health care so health

care workers will know what their future will look like?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I would

draw the Member opposite’s attention to our extremely good re-imagined plan

called the Health Accord NL, the first volume of which is out in print. If the

Member opposite would like a print copy I can find one for her, but they are

widely available online. The second volume, the implementation plan, will be

presented to myself and the Premier in due course. I don’t have a definite date

yet.

We are

taking those areas where we know we need to advance rapidly, that were common,

and have discussed with Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth and moving those along

without waiting for the report, knowing that that’s what’s going to come next.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

I ask the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development what new stock of

affordable housing is being constructed or planning to be constructed and where?

Are there plans to use the Grace General Hospital site to construct affordable

housing units?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Speaker, thank you for the

opportunity to respond.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is certainly working on expanding

the housing stock; we are working with the federal government to ensure that we

meet the housing needs right across the province. We are also spending money on

repairing our current rental housing units. We will be expanding shelters and we

will also be expanding affordable housing in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

budget made no commitments to increase the stock of available rental houses in

this province. The CMHC sets the current vacancy rate in the province at 3.4 per

cent. The average price across the province for a two bedroom is $926 a month.

In St. John’s, the rate is 3.1 per cent and the average rent is over $1,000.

I ask

the minister: What in the budget will address these realities that people are

facing?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Again, Speaker, I appreciate

the opportunity to respond.

We’ve

negotiated with the federal government a Canada Housing Benefit, which will

increase rent supplements across the province. That’s in the budget. We will be

expanding our maintenance and repairs on our housing units. That’s in the

budget. We will also be expanding and increasing the housing stock. That’s in

the budget.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

I’m not seeing it, Speaker,

and shelters are not the answer.

Many

housing units paid through rental s upplements are sub-par and unliveable. I know

because I’ve actually visited them. There should be clear enforceable standards

that apply before CSSD agrees to pay rent for their clients in a given unit.

Will the minister bring in legislation – and when –

that ensures that some level of enforceable property standards are met,

especially, for landlords housing CSSD recipients?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

ABBOTT:

Again, Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

a couple of things. When it comes to clients of my department who are in housing

units, whether owned and managed by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation or a private landlord, we inspect those units to make sure they meet

our standards. That’s a given and that’s a business practice that we are sure to

continue.

When it comes to private shelters or not-for-profit shelters, if the Member is

referring to that, we also have standards and we’re building on those as well.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the

Transparency and Accountability Act , I am pleased to table this document

regarding the establishment of Celebrate NL.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion that

notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private

Members’ Day on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on

that day for Routine Proceedings and conduct Government Business.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much.

Speaker, I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order to 11(1), that this house

shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the province’s population has aged more rapidly than any other province

in the country over the last 50 years.

The

number of persons over aged 65 have more than doubled in the past 30 years.

Many

aging couples have been assessed and deemed eligible for placement in a

long-term care facility and require different levels of care and are separated

into different facilities in order to get the care they require in a timely

manner.

Having

support and assistance as close to their home and community as possible should

be a key objective in developing and providing services to our seniors. As well,

individuals want choice in living in a place that maximizes independence.

Couples

who have supported each other should not have to face being separated when they

enter long-term care. Keeping them together ensures a better quality of life.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,

call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to enact legislation that allows couples to stay together even as they

age, even at the highest level of care.

Mr.

Speaker, we don’t have to go too far, it was only a couple of weeks back that we

experienced a couple in their 90s, married 73 years, who were separated. We

managed to get them together for two days before the gentleman passed. But there

are far too many instances of this that are happening out there.

The

Minister of Health spoke to an earlier response today, although we’re waiting on

the implementation plan for the Health Accord, they’re starting to work on

things in advance. I will just read from the Health Accord. It talks about

implementing a continuum of care for older adults, including older adults with

disabilities. A continuum of care includes options for care that will follow a

person through time, adapting to their changes. It goes on to say that we should

be strengthening provincial legislation, regulation and policy to provide the

care and protection for older people.

Strengthening provincial legislation, that’s what this is about. This is

actually asking for legislation. The minister has responded in the past saying

it would be very difficult to legislate something we couldn’t deliver. Well,

it’s time to step aside and have someone step in who can deliver. This is too

serious.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

have been many incidents of vehicles being damaged by potholes within the

District of Bonavista, leading to frustration and added cost of living for

residents and visitors. Many of these potholes remain unaddressed for lengthy

periods of time after damage has occurred and notification of the damage was

communicated to Transportation and Infrastructure.

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to accept liability for these damages and/or repair

these holes, alleviating the damage for drivers in a far more urgent manner.

Just to

speak to the petition, Mr. Speaker. This seems to be a situation all over the

Island, but I know that in the District of Bonavista, this winter in particular,

it has led to many circumstances where we had vehicles damaged by potholes. Many

of these potholes had been reported; I know I personally took pictures and

notified them. Some of them probably as deep as eight to 10 inches below the

asphalt, which would damage the rims, and we’ve had lots of damages.

I know

that it is tough in an environment where we’ve got wide fluctuations of

temperatures and I know there are challenges, but I think with a little more

ingenuity we can come up with some measure to make sure that the roads are safer

until we can get hot asphalt to fix it properly.

Larry

Holloway in Musgravetown, who had experience with the highways, had notified me

and stated: Even if the grey pickup trucks that cover every kilometre of our

district daily – and I stand to be corrected on that – even if they had Class A

in those chronic potholes to put in a few shovelfuls, it would spare the

residents and the visitors of having their vehicles damaged in the winter.

conclusion, I realize the challenge, I realize cold patch is not going to always

work at every given time, but the thought of putting Class A in those more

chronic and more ominous potholes until the weather and the conditions improve

to be able to fix it properly seems very legit.

The only

thing I know is that we can’t continue to have these potholes that would be

unaddressed for months while vehicles are being constantly damaged.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

it is only fair to get up and respond to it as I have seen a lot of pictures of

the potholes, but I can table a letter that one Transportation minister was –

and that’s your leader there – that tells you exactly when you should fill a

pothole.

The

reality of it is, this year we have had weather patterns that have been the thaw

and the freeze. It is beyond challenging out there. People are sending me

pictures of potholes that are full of water; you can’t repair it.

We’re

exploring different options. I ask people for feedback. If someone can tell me a

good way or a more efficient way of doing it, we will do it. But it has been

done over and over and over. With the challenge of the weather, it is just

almost impossible to bring it to where we want it to be.

Hopefully, now when the spring hits we’ll get better weather so the depots that

have their summer maintenance plans, they can get at it quickly and create some

sort of security for people that are travelling these highways. But, again, it’s

a challenge, it’s a challenge for the TI workers, and I pat them on the back

because they’re doing a good job but with difficult circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

petition is for adequate health care for the community of Postville.

We, the

undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our

leaders to ensure the residents of the Northern Labrador community of Postville

have adequate health care.

The

community of Postville, Labrador, has only one Labrador-Grenfell Health nursing

position in Postville at the single nursing clinic. This means that there is

only one clinic nurse physically present in the community. This nurse does not

have access to RCMP support services during a medical emergency because the

community does not have RCMP stationed in their community.

The

community of Postville is isolated with no road access to the outside world. The

only means of year-round transportation is by aircraft. Often, inclement weather

prevents air services, including medevac – that’s medical evacuation services –

from getting to Postville. Also, if the lone nurse becomes ill and inclement

weather prevents nursing relief from reaching the community, Postville will be

without a nurse.

Speaker,

this petition is really important. Most people would say, well, just one nurse,

what’s the big deal, there’s a lot of communities that don’t have more than one

nurse. But our communities are totally isolated. So at night, or if the weather

is bad, that nurse is all alone, without professional services: no RCMP support,

no additional health care supports. That’s the biggest problem.

During a

health care crisis – it could be any kind of crisis, actually, where there’s

medical attention needed and also the professional supports of the RCMP – it has

actually contributed to a lot of stress, we’re having trouble actually being

able to keep nurses. Now, a lot of the times they’re just on rotation and it’s

creating a lot of concerns. If we had road access, adjacent communities would be

able to support the Postville clinic.

If a

nurse is working all night and is very tired, she has to respond to an emergency

the next day, or if that nurse gets sick or ill, basically, Postville will be

without any nurse support.

So it’s

very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that we actually look at that and make sure

the community of Postville is not vulnerable and at risk of not having any nurse

support at any time.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

reasons for this petition are as follows:

The

residents of South West Arm are troubled with the unsafe condition of the road

and the lack of maintenance to the roads that are maintained by transportation

and works.

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

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and maintain these roads to a standard that

is safe for travel by all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, in 2019 when I got elected, there was a five-year road plan in place

and there was zero work scheduled for South West Arm. At that point, in 2019,

the road was in serious disrepair. I always joked about the guardrails and I

said I don’t know if they’re asleep or if they’ve just been left alone. The

guardrails, on some very serious turns, have been literally lid down on the side

of the road for three years. There have been hundreds of pictures sent about

potholes and conditions. It’s a terrible road, very unsafe.

But what

really jumps out at me, right in about the middle of South West Arm, is the

cut-off for children who attend school in Clarenville. The children that

attended school in Clarenville last year missed half of what the children who

attend South West Arm Academy. Now, these kids travel the same road. That will

tell you the type of maintenance that happens as you get further down South West

Arm.

It’s

absolutely ridiculous. The plows don’t show up. Every single morning, people who

work at transportation and works travel that road in government vehicles. They

see the potholes. They’ve seen the guardrails. They understand the dangers. The

minister has received email upon email, upon email, upon email. As a mater of

fact, over the last three years, every year, we’ve had to go to the department

to say we have fish trucks, reefer trucks here to pick up a million dollars

worth of fish, a million dollars worth of product, and the trucks have refused

to go down there, the roads are in that bad need of repair. It is absolutely

ludicrous.

Now, I

will say the minister, when I’ve reached out to him recently for some assistance

with the fish trucks and stuff, the work has happened pretty quickly. But we

shouldn’t have to call the department for that work to be done; it’s general

maintenance.

As for

the comment on potholes, how do you fill them? How do you get the standing water

out? Same as they do everywhere else: with gas-powered leaf blowers. We’ve got

recycling machines that government owns that they can use to fill these holes on

a regular basis, and certainly, if we’re going to use cold patch we should take

it out of the bag. Because that’s not what’s happening.

Anyhow,

at the end of the day, the reality of this is that if the maintenance was

carried out in the summer and the potholes were filled in properly, it wouldn’t

create the issues that have in the winter. You can go to my district, travel the

roads, and you’ll see potholes skipped over that. They use cans of paint to mark

them and it wears out.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

You can look at my r é sum é

any day the week; I used to do roads, a lot more than you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Speaker,

I move pursuant to Standing Order 11 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, today, April 11.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 6.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Government House Leader, the following resolution:

WHEREAS

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under

section 28 of the

Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make

recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS

the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety on June 6, 2019; and

WHEREAS

the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial

Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal Report was tabled in this hon.

House on June 25, 2019, as required by

section 28.2 of the act; and

WHEREAS

the House of Assembly is required to approve, vary or reject the report; and

WHEREAS

government has decided to ask this hon. House to accept all of the

recommendations of the tribunal as contained in its report of June 4, 2019;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the

2018 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits

Tribunal; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommendations of the tribunal be

implemented effective April 1, 2017.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

appreciate the opportunity to speak to this resolution today. First, I would

like to give a brief history of how we got here and why we’re here this

afternoon on this issue.

The

Provincial Court Act requires that a

tribunal be established to make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of

Provincial Court judges. The act requires two things essentially: for the report

of the tribunal to be tabled in the House of Assembly, and for the House to vote

to approve or vary the report.

The most

recent tribunal prepared was the Wicks report, and it was delivered to

government on June 6, 2019. The report outlined salaries retroactive to April 1,

2017, for a four-year period. The Wicks report was brought forward with a

resolution to the House recommending it be adopted. This was June 16, 2020; the

House never voted on the Wicks report.

As a

result, the parties, including the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

ended up in court. We also know this is not the first time this has been an

issue. In fact, our courts have recognized that the history of the remuneration

process of judges since 1991, at least, has been fraught with difficulty.

Specifically, as noted by our courts, unfortunately one of the most egregious

aspects of the recent case involving the Wicks report is the extent to which the

response of the recommendations was played out in a political forum. On March

24, 2022, the Supreme Court Trial Division released a decision ordering a

resolution be put forward in the House again as it was on June 16, 2020, and

that the House vote on this resolution. These are orders of the court.

Furthermore, cost was awarded against the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador on a solicitor-client basis, the highest level of cost that can be

awarded.

So that

is the background relating to the resolution and why we’re voting here today.

However, I do want to back up a little bit and talk about why there is a

tribunal in the first place that makes recommendations related to judges’

salaries and benefits. The outline of the process to determine judges’ salaries

was developed by a series of Supreme Court of Canada cases. Therefore, we

already know the law. We know decisions about these salaries must abide by our

Constitution and the main Constitution principle is independence of the

judiciary.

The

courts have stated it is imperative that the courts be free and appear to “be

free from political interference through economic manipulation by the other

branches of government, and that they not become entangled in the politics of

remuneration from the public purse.” This is why there must be a tribunal. The

decision related to the salaries of the provincial judiciary needs to be

independent of government.

We are

in a different position today then the House was in June 2020. At that time,

arguments were made for and against the resolution and all comments were made in

good faith and fair and appropriate. However, we now have an order of the court

telling the House to perform its statutory duty under the Provincial Court Act

and to vote on the report. This was not done in 2020.

However,

the court rejected the request to simply adopt the Wicks tribunal without a vote

of the House. The court instead is allowing the House to proceed with its

obligations. The court stated it was not prepared to find without evidence that

this House will flagrantly fail to respect the order of the court, which the

order is simply telling the House and the Members here today to follow the law.

We are told we have to fulfill our constitutional and statutory obligations and

that is what the resolution is about.

While

the House has obviously not yet voted on this resolution, the court had

sufficient facts before it to determine that a no vote by the Members of this

House of Assembly today would be unconstitutional. As I noted already, this

process has been fraught for some time and a lot of that has to do with the

process being politicized.

Other

provinces are not immune to this. In fact, just last week a court decision in

Nova Scotia ruled that their process had not followed the proper constitutional

procedures. In the Nova Scotia case, the court noted that any discussion around

money and salaries is political. In fact, the court said: “Fiscal plans are

inherently political.” So even debating the issue of judge’s salaries in the

House makes it a political issue.

That is

why we are bringing forward amendments for the Provincial Court Act to ensure

that this House will never vote on this again. We are depoliticizing this issue

for all future governments regardless of the political party that is leading the

government of the day.

stated by the courts, it’s crucial to the rule of law that the judiciary is

allowed to function, and be seen to function, independent of the Legislative and

Executive Branches. Judicial independence is of such importance to the

functioning of democracy that it is considered constitutionally protected from

violation by the other branches.

I know

some Members may have difficulty accepting the increase in salary for judges,

but this is about more than that. It is about protecting our democracy. We are

so very fortunate to live in a country where judicial independence is protected.

We are so lucky that a judge cannot be bribed by a politician, or where a judge

can make a decision that violates the principles of fundamental justice, or the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The vote

here today may not be one you want to vote yes on, but sometimes democracy is

difficult, sometimes it is expensive and sometimes it is messy. But it is a

small price to pay when you think about the alternative.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a

pleasure for me to speak on this very important resolution. As the minister has

indicated, he’s provided a brief history of the problems that we have seen and

the fact that this has been, as he’s noted, fraught with difficulties,

historically.

I must

say that we agree, as far as the rule of law, which applies in this case in

reference to judicial independence. It is, and must be, a cornerstone of the

democratic system. We know that because of the way the process has been in the

past, there has been politicization of this issue with respect to remuneration

for judges. We know that there must not be any actual or apparent political

interference with the judiciary, which places the independence of the judiciary

into question. So there’s no disagreement on that point.

The

importance of depoliticizing the judges and protecting that independence, again,

is important to our democratic system and to the rule of law. So as the minister

has referenced, and I think this is welcome, I think we can take comfort in the

new legislation, the new amendment to the Provincial Court Act, which we will be

addressing shortly. That will be a way to address the problems with the process

that has existed. It will be a way to remove the House of Assembly from any

involvement in this issue with respect to judges’ remuneration.

The

Wicks report, which was a resolution brought forward, I think it was in 2020,

the Wicks report of 2019, that report did address some factors and that’s why it

is important to have a tribunal involved in this process, because they look at

various factors when they’re assessing whether there should be judges’

remuneration.

The

tribunal was established, the report had been tabled, but it had not been acted

on by government. It has to be noted that government has the responsibility

here, Speaker. It is not the Opposition’s role to bring matters before the House

of Assembly like legislation, like resolutions as this resolution or any of the

Orders of the Day. It is the responsibility of government, not the Opposition to

do that.

That did

not happen and we are aware of the consequences of the fact that that was

brought before the House for a vote.

I think

what’s important to note, though, is that now we’re at a place where we have an

effective remedy, if you will. A way to amend the Provincial Court Act, which,

hopefully, once and for all, will address the problems that we have seen as far

as this issue and will remove it, will depoliticize this issue going forward.

On that

note, I’ll conclude.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker,

I’ll be brief. Just starting off, it’s good to see new legislation incorporate

gender-neutral language. It’s a sign of true inclusion, not just expanding the

language to include he or she but the substitution of person, because it’s only

with the substitution of person can we include everybody regardless of how we

self-identify.

I also

want to say when it comes to increases for salaries; I have no issue with

anything relating to salaries as long as it’s warranted, as long as it’s

actually a measure of the value and also we have to be competitive, especially

when it comes to judges. We have to be able to attract the best and brightest.

Looking

at some of the changes made now in

Section 27.1(1): the annual salaries of

judges to be adjusted to an amount equal to the average salary of the provincial

court judges in the Maritime regions. This is a positive thing. It’ll make sure

that our judges are paid a salary that is competitive.

One of

the things that was brought up in the technical briefing this morning was that

our salaries are a bit lower. So this is a positive thing for me.

concerns or issues with the timelines for submission, clarifications, approval,

vary or reject.

Just

looking at one of the questions now that was brought up in the technical

briefing this morning from my fellow MHA in Labrador, Lake Melville. He talked

about whether future tribunal reports – will the recommendations be coming to

the House of Assembly or will they actually just go before the Lieutenant

Governor. It’s my understanding they will not be coming before the House of

Assembly, but as my fellow MHA in the House from Harbour Main makes really good

points there.

Anyway,

like I said, I’ve got no problems with this bill. I will be voting to support

it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m just

going to take a few minutes now to speak to this. I’m not going to say a couple

of minutes because when I do, it never seems to work out that way.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to say, first of all, that I’m a little bit surprised by some of

the comments in the sense that it seems like everybody, all of a sudden, is all

kumbaya, we’re all great with this. But I just want to remind the House of

Assembly that when we talk about this bill – and we’re talking 2019, 2020,

whenever it was – pretty much everybody that was in the House then is still in

the House, or a lot of us are. The same people, not everybody but there are a

lot of the same people for sure.

I’m

going to say, Mr. Speaker, that as one person who voted against this – first of

all, I just want to say and give credit to the Minister of Industry, Energy and

whatever the title is now. He knows who I’m talking about. Anyway, he was the

minister of Justice at the time and he told us – he was quite clear that we were

going to end up back in this House of Assembly if we voted against the raise; he

did say it. But, of course, I think with the exception of himself, even his own

colleagues voted against him and the whole House basically said no, the judges

are not getting a raise. Or most of us, anyways.

AN HON. MEMBER:

There was no (inaudible).

P. LANE:

Oh no, it was withdrawn.

Okay, that’s right; it was withdrawn because they didn’t want to. They didn’t

want to support it so they withdrew it; that’s what it was. But they didn’t want

to support it.

And I

didn’t want to support it. I have to say that I make – unfortunately, it went

the way that he predicted it would go and now it’s basically being forced down

our throat and we kind of have to support this; we don’t have a whole lot of

choice.

I just

want to say, for the record, that while I did appreciate the minister at the

time warning us that this would happen, and he predicted it, I think we all

still voted against it, or we were saying we were against it and we did so with

our eyes wide open. I make no apologies for it. Now, I’m glad it’s being taken

out of our hands, in a sense. I’m glad it’s being taken out of our hands.

I was

adamantly against giving them a raise and I make no apologies for it; I really

don’t. Because at the time, Mr. Speaker, it’s important to note that this was a

time when our public servants weren’t getting any raises. They were all expected

to take zero and zero and so on. We had the Premier saying and the former

minister of Finance – Minister of Education now, I believe – prior to that

talking about how we might not have been able to make payroll and so on. Needed

to be backstopped by the federal government perhaps to make payroll. We were on

the verge of a fiscal cliff.

Given

those circumstances that we were in as a province there was no way, on

principle, if nothing else, I was going to support to give one select group of

people who are already making over $200,000 a year, and then to simply give them

a raise while, at the same time, we’re saying to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador we have no money and we’re almost bankrupt. We have seniors and other

people with issues that are struggling to survive, we have all these issues with

health care and everything else and now we’re going to give somebody who’s

already making over $200,000 a raise. It wasn’t on for me. And to be honest with

you, if it came back today under the same circumstances we’re in, I still

wouldn’t support it. So I’m glad it’s out of my hands, because they wouldn’t be

getting a raise if it were up to me, in that regard.

Not that

I have anything against judges. I really don’t. I do understand that we can’t

politicize it, but the bottom line is that’s why I kind of even have a concern

with this bill, to an extent, because it’s talking about the averages for other

provinces. They’re going to automatically, basically get a raise, or it will be

reviewed every year and they could be getting a raise based on the average of

other provinces.

So here

we are, if the other Atlantic provinces are doing well and they’re not in the

hole the same way we are and they can afford to give raise and pay higher

salaries, we’re going to be forced to basically do the same thing, even though

legitimately we can’t afford it. That’s why if there was going to be an

independent process and an independent tribunal and everything else, personally,

I think it should take into account – and that’s what should have happened to

begin with, the last time around, is that the formula they were using did not

take into account the fiscal circumstances of our province and the ability to

pay.

If we

were negotiating with doctors, teachers, nurses or public servants, the first

thing we’d say is look at our fiscal circumstance. We’d love to give you a

raise, but we just can’t afford it. We’re on the verge of bankruptcy here. But

that process never took that into account. It simply looked at, here’s the job

you’re doing and you haven’t had a raise so you’re entitled to a raise, blah

blah. Even under this new process, now we’re going to look at it in that same

vein; we’re not going to look at it from the point of view of where the province

is to fiscally.

everybody else has to tighten their belts, everybody else can’t get a raise,

but, judges, you’re special – and I understand the separation, but you’re

special. You get special treatment. You deserve your raise. Unfortunately our

teachers, our nurses and our public servants, they don’t deserve a raise or we

can’t afford to give it to them, but they’re going to get theirs.

I just

have a problem in principle with it. I had it then. I was against it then and

I’d be against giving them a raise now, to be honest with you. But what this is

doing is it’s taking now out of our hands. I do agree with the independent

process because we do have to separate the judiciary from the politics. I get

that. I really do.

I’ll

support it in that vein. But I do so begrudgingly. I would say that I do so

begrudgingly, and I’m glad I voted against it the last time. If was up to me,

I’d vote against this time, given the fact that in my mind they should be no

different than anybody else. I will support the fact now they’re taking it away

from the House of Assembly. It will be totally independent, but I do wish there

was a mechanism in place that would not just look at the average of other

provinces or Atlantic provinces; it would also take into consideration our

province’s ability to pay. Because that’s how we determine everybody else’s

raise, if they’re getting one or they’re not getting one.

But

we’re not going to do it for this group, and again – it’s not about judges, per

se, not a personal thing. I understand the education they need, that they have

to work up, work towards it, and the responsibility they have. It’s got nothing

to do with that. Brain surgeons have lots of responsibilities, too. But we have

to negotiate with the Medical Association. But in this case, it’s out of our

hands.

again, I’ll support the bill from the principle of it now being removed from the

House of Assembly, fair enough, and having that division. But I do want to

acknowledge once again that the former minister of Justice told us this was

going to happen, but we didn’t support it and we did so with our eyes open. We

knew what we were doing. I knew what I was doing, and I don’t regret it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m just

going to have a few words on this here. We all knew it was going to come back to

the House of Assembly again to be passed in this House of Assembly. I’ve been

through it before, back years ago, and I told the minister at the time. The

minister told the House of Assembly that this would happen, would cost the

taxpayers of the province more money, but the part that surprises me is we all

know it’s hard to do. We all hate to give them this big raise when the people

are struggling, but we need it to remain independent. The judicial system needs

to remain independent. That is why the committee was set up and that is why we

went through the tribunal, and this is why it was brought back to the House of

Assembly.

But the

thing that amazes me with it is that I’m confident that this went through

Cabinet. When this goes through Cabinet, then this is a government policy that

was brought to the House of Assembly. When the minister of Justice at the time,

the Minister of Energy now, was up there in the gallery, and then we were

debating it – and this bill was pulled. Well, it’s not the first time that his

colleagues never stood up for him, either. It’s not the first time.

But

anyway, here he is standing up there in that gallery, sitting in that gallery,

approved by Cabinet, on the agenda in the House of Assembly, and then the

government, because Opposition were saying we can’t do it, we can’t do it,

withdrew the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE:

Withdrew the bill. They

withdrew the bill off the table. Anyway –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE:

I didn’t interrupt you.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

I didn’t interrupt you,

please. If you have something to say, you’ll have another turn when I’m

finished.

This is

what I find, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of this. The minute you bring up the

process and how they failed on the process, they take it personal. This is not

personal. This is something for the government to learn that if you’re going to

make a tough decision, make the tough, right decision.

This is

what the issue is for me with it; no one in this House wants to give anybody a

major raise right now. We know that. That is part of the process. But when the

government goes through the Cabinet process and brings this in the House of

Assembly and because there is Opposition raising the issues, good, bad or

indifferent, government, after being warned by the minister of Justice and

Public Safety at the time that we’re going to go to court and it’s going to cost

the taxpayers more money, the bill was withdrawn from this House of Assembly. It

wasn’t called after they had a no vote called on it.

So I say

to the government and to all of us here also, there are times that we need to

make the tough decisions. Government are the ones right now that need to make

the tough decision. I’m just saying to the government now this is an example

where you didn’t make the tough decision. You embarrassed the minister of

Justice and Public Safety, you were warned that it was going to go through the

courts and it was going to cost more money.

My issue

with the government, and I implore upon the government, if the decisions that

are going to be made, the tough decisions, make the tough decisions but explain

it to the people. The minute you withdraw it and take them off the table,

they’re not going to disappear; they’re going to come back. They may come back

harder; they may come back and cause more harm – which in this case was a bigger

penalty financially for the Province Newfoundland and Labrador.

To the

Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, I know he’s over there listening

very attentively, I say you warned us all and you stood up with your courage. I

told people that this was going to happen also, because I’ve been through it

before a number of years back. I just want to say to all the legislative people

here who are going to vote, if there’s a tough decision, let’s find a way to

make the tough decision for the right people of the province. Let’s take this

here as a learning experience.

Sometimes we have to make the tough decisions. Sometimes the Opposition and the

independents also have to step in and support the government on the tough

decisions because they’re the right decisions. Just because they’re tough that

doesn’t mean they’re not right. And if we don’t come together as a group here,

40 of us in this House of Assembly and accept sometimes we have to make a

decision that we all don’t like – and I’m sure no one in government now wants to

stand up and say they’re going to give this raise. But we need the independence.

That’s why the tribunal was set up, the independence of the judicial system in

our province. And if we don’t have that, no independence, then where are we in

our democracy.

So let’s

take all this as a learning experience from all of us in this House of Assembly

and say that sometimes we have to support each other in the decisions for the

betterment of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know this bill is

going to pass. I say to the minister, I know you had to bring it in. Definitely

had to be brought in. So this is no onus on yourself; this had to be brought in

by the court order. I say now, let’s use this as learning experience. I’ll sit

down, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll say one more thing. There are going to be a lot more

tough decisions that the government is going to have to make.

advice to the government is inform the Opposition, inform the independents,

inform the Third Party and inform the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

because if it’s the right decision that we’re going to make, people will come on

board to support the right decision that’s going to help the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I, for one – I know I speak for the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands – if a decision has to be made that’s going to represent the

people of Newfoundland and their best interests, we are for it, and we will

support the government on that.

I’ll sit

down with that now. I say to the minister, I know it’s tough to bring it in but

it had to be done; it just had to be you to do it.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

I have a few minutes and just a few comments I’d like to make on this issue. I

guess the one, just after listening to a couple of independent Members speak, as

an Opposition we have a role to play in this House. It may not be a popularity

contest, but we have a role to play. People may not like it on government side.

People may not like it on the Third Party, independent side; we have a role to

play. We have a right to question government. We’re the Official Opposition and

that comes with that responsibility.

This pay

raise that we’re discussing, this resolution, it’s going to go through. The

minister has made that statement and we all realize that. Because it’s our

constitutional right, we have no choice according to what the judges ruled,

which I find a bit – I won’t get into that, but I question all that. All this

process I’ve questioned.

One

thing I’ve always questioned and I’ve never agreed with, it should never come in

here if you want to rubber-stamp. The people put us all in our seats to speak

for the fiscal responsibilities of the province, our financial situation, how we

spend money. They don’t expect us to come in here and be bobble-heads and nod

our head yes or no, when we need to. They want us to give meaningful debate.

We gave

meaningful debate to this raised issue. It was pulled from the debate or pulled

from the House at the time, but we put up an opposition to it, because I think,

in the context, we were right. Our principal decision, we were right. Judges

have ruled, the decision has been made, we are legislators, we have a

responsibility and they’re telling us we have no right to reject this. My

comment to that was: Why did it ever come in this House?

Now, I

know the minister has made reference that this is not going to happen any more

in the future. I can’t make apologies for last year, when this happened, because

I think we’ve done everything in our power that we should have done. I don’t

think anybody should expect anything to come into this House and be

rubber-stamped by people in this Legislature.

It’s not

a time for apologies or what we need to do, and we’ve got to do things better as

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is saying – absolutely. He has been here

a long time and he knows what I’m saying is right. We have a role to play, and

we have to stand on our principles. Yes, this will go through. Yes, they will

get their raise. Do I agree with the process? No. Do I think this should have

come in the House? No.

But it

happened and it is what it is. They’ve ruled. We’re accepting of that. Like I

say we realize we have no choice, but it’s not one champion – the Member for

Mount Pearl - Southlands wasn’t the only champion on that. There was a crowd of

champions there; it was the Opposition brought this up, and questioned it.

Everyone else agreed, a lot of people agreed and I know a lot of people on

government side agreed.

But at

the end of the day, we will be accepting this. It’s important to make this point

and make it clear. We do it because we’re legislators and we have to uphold the

court of the land. That’s what we’re built on, the judiciary – it is; we support

it. That’s what makes us the great country we are, and province.

But

never for a second do I think it’s fair for anyone to bring something in here,

in this Legislature, and expect us to just rubber-stamp and agree to it because

we have no rights. I take offence to that. If this comes in tomorrow on another

issue – not just this issue, this is the one we dealt with – any other issue

going forward, I will not be standing in my place and saying yes because I’m

supposed to do it; don’t bring it in here if we can’t have a debate on it and

question it and vote yea or nay. It should never come in this Legislature.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy, and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I can’t

say I’m happy to speak to this resolution, but I think it’s necessary that I do

so, given some of my history on this particular issue. I don’t think I’d be able

to live with myself if I did not take an opportunity to speak to this, which was

done a couple years ago, and just speak here today.

The

first thing I would says is I’m extremely proud of the Attorney General and

Minister of Justice for bringing this forward, for doing the work to make this

happen, and I’ve got to say that we’re very lucky to have his counsel and his

ability to see through the issues and make the right decisions. So I’m really

happy that we are here doing this, and in fact we’re going to improve upon this.

This is

an issue that has been ongoing now at various times over the last 30 years or

more. This has been in this House multiple, multiple times. But I think we’ve

reached a point now where the recent decision of the Supreme Court has put it

back on us as legislators and we know that we cannot continue on the same way.

Now, I

do want to say, I’ve listened to the comments from a number of the Members

opposite, a number who spoke a couple of years ago and a number who didn’t. Now,

it’s funny because back then I can remember I was actually sat up in the

rafters, up there perched by myself. It’s one thing to feel like you are

figuratively on your own, but I was, certainly, literally on my own up there as

well, because you could see where this matter was going to go right from the

first paragraph of what the former Leader of the Opposition said, you knew where

this was going to go.

I point

out something just said by the Member for CBS, and he’s right, it’s not a

popularity contest. It’s not about rubber-stamping. There’s nothing popular

about bringing in a resolution that involves a pay raise for a group of

individuals that, again, is very select in this province – there are less than

30 – and it’s easy sometimes to say that the remuneration is fine.

So I get

that, and he said we’re not going to apologize. I certainly wouldn’t ask him to

apologize nor do I think there is – but what I do think is interesting and what

I need to bring up is that there were seriously deficient statements made in

this House and they were done so in spite of knowing better.

Perhaps

I am taking this a little personal, but when you sit up there – and, again, it

wasn’t a popularity contest. Certainly, it wasn’t fun when you get up and speak

to something and every Member after that speaks basically talks about how

terrible this is.

You’re

hearing the comments for what they are. You know the difference and in certain

cases, some of the Members opposite should have known better, but they chose to

continue on in spite of knowing better because it’s an easy stand to take when

you argue against a raise for a Provincial Court judge.

I heard

the comments from the Member for Torngat: I have no problem with this value for

judges and saying that. But I can guarantee you that wasn’t the comment made two

years ago by that Member when that Member sat as a Member of the Official

Opposition.

I would

be interested to know if the point of view was raised in the caucus room. I

don’t know. But it’s raised here now and, again, I find it extremely difficult

to sit here and hear that now. I wish that enlightenment was here two years ago.

So that

is part of it here. Again, I have the debate right here. I have read it a few

times over the last two years. I have been waiting for this day because I said

in the last part of – and we talked about the Members had a briefing – the

Members had a briefing two years ago, too. The Members had a briefing, but it

did not matter what the facts were because it was an easy thing to do to oppose

this, especially in a minority government situation, to oppose this thing which

makes it look like we’re out there trying to give judges this big, undeserved

raise.

I just

look through some of the comments and some of them just blow my mind. The former

Leader of the Opposition is not here, thanks to the current Minister of Justice.

Just one of the statements here: “Will the public have a sense of outrage and

disappointment if judges don’t get the raise that is recommended in this report?

I think not. Will judges themselves be offended? Again, I think not ... many of

these folks are friends of mine. Knowing them as rational people who understand

the surrounding circumstances of things and are capable of understanding the

context of important decisions, I think” they’ll understand. He could not have

been more wrong.

I’ll

point out something else that Member – that former Leader of the Opposition, his

wife was the chair of one of these panels. She did the one years ago that

recommended over a 20 per cent raise. So this is why I am frustrated – I’m not

frustrated at every Member. That Member should have known the difference and

didn’t.

I go on

further. The current Member for Harbour Main: “… I would submit or argue that it

would be irresponsible to support, with public funds, an increase of any kind to

the judges who are involved here.” And here is the other one: “… in the interest

of the judiciary itself, I would even say that this is perhaps in the best

interest of the judiciary. I would say the members of the judiciary that are

there would perhaps agree that they will be better served by us not approving

this at this time. … Because they will not face the public criticism that will

surely follow ….”

I know

the Leader for the NDP just made points trying to compare it to similar

negotiations he went through as a member of the teachers’ union, talking about

how the ones he went through and this one.

The

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands kind of echoed his points here today. Again,

he said the same thing and put it out there.

The

former Member for Cape St. Francis, the former Member, I will point out, not the

current Member, but the former Member went on a whole lot, again, playing the

populous argument.

listened to all that, and I said at the end, I said, I get what you’re saying

but we’re going to end up back here. I pointed out the difference to the Member.

The Leader of the NDP, knew the difference, he knows there’s a difference

between public sector bargaining and judges. You ought to know the difference,

or chose to ignore the difference.

People

say no, these judges, they’re friends of mine. They’re rational people. They’re

going to appreciate this. I said, well, it’s probably going to end up in

litigation. I can almost guarantee it. I was right.

I guess

what I’m saying is that, look, I’m glad to see we’ve all come together here now,

after two years and after hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars spent in

legal fees, hundreds of thousands that could be paying for potholes, that could

be paying for so many things and they’re not.

I will

point out the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands did support it. He did. He

never got a chance to vote, but got it, because he had been through this before.

I put that on the record. But everybody else, we never got to that point, and a

lot of it is because, again, I give credit to the current Member for Harbour

Main, the current Leader of the NDP and the former Leader of the Opposition who

politicized this process and took us down a road that cost us a lot of money.

On that

note, I’m glad to see the current Minister of Justice bringing this forward. I’m

glad to see, as somebody said, that we have learned from this process, learned

from the mistakes that we have made and, hopefully, we can continue on going

forward.

On that

note, Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now he will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Thanks

to everyone who made their comments this afternoon. I appreciate all the

positions and arguments made for and against, and the history of it.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

All

those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 11, Bill 44.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 44,

An Act To Amend The

Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 44,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second

time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.”

(Bill 44)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll

just speak briefly on this here this afternoon. The proposed bill will amend the

Provincial Court Act, 1991 to address

matters relating to the Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal.

There

has been delay in the tribunal process, which has been noted by our courts.

These amendments will help ensure that the tribunal process operates in a

timely, depoliticized manner, maintaining the province’s constitutional

obligations. Judicial independence is a constitutional requirement, and to

maintain judicial independence judges must have security of tenure,

administrative independence and financial security.

relation to financial security, the Supreme Court of Canada has found that

judges and governments are precluded from direct negotiation of salary and

benefits. The courts have found that while judges are paid from the public purse

and are public servants, they are not civil servants or government employees.

The financial security of judges is therefore ensured by independent,

depoliticized judicial compensation commissions.

Newfoundland and Labrador the Provincial

Court Act, 1991 establishes a tribunal, which is tasked with making

recommendations on the salary and benefits of Provincial Court judges. Under the

current act, a tribunal must review and provide recommendations on salaries and

benefits to the minister not later than four years since the date of the last

report. The tribunal’s report is then tabled by the minister in the House of

Assembly within 15 days of receipt and the House must accept, vary or reject the

report within 30 days of it being tabled.

Recent

decisions from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador have noted that

the tribunal process has faced delay, retroactivity and politicization. The

court ordered that the government and Provincial Court judges engage in

consultation with regard to the act and the tribunal process. This consultation

has occurred.

The

proposed amendments will: Implement a formula for the calculation of salary.

Salary will be based on the average salary of provincial court judges in New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI. This is to be calculated as of April 1 every

year and implemented effective July 1 every year. It shall include retroactive

salary increases.

Require

a tribunal to be established on or before June 1, 2020, and tribunal

recommendations on or before December 1, 2020. This tribunal will consider the

period April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2027. Require a tribunal to be established on

or before June 1, 2026, and tribunal recommendations on or before December 1,

2026. This tribunal will consider the period April 1, 2027, to March 31, 2031.

Require

that a tribunal be established and recommendations received every four years

thereafter. Require the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to approve, vary or

reject the tribunal report within 60 days of the minister having received the

report. If the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not address the report within

this time frame, the recommendations of the tribunal will be considered

accepted. Recommendations regarding salary will only be accepted by default if

they are in accordance with the salary formula prescribed in the act.

These

amendments protect judicial independence by depoliticizing the process of

determining the salary and benefits for Provincial Court judges. Prescribing a

time for appointment of tribunals and a firm deadline for the receipt of the

tribunal report will help to address the delays and retroactivity historically

faced in this province.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

This

bill to amend the Provincial Court Act, again, as referenced earlier, is a

welcome amendment. We know that now we will have in place a process that, again,

will remove the contentious issue of salaries and remuneration for judges. It

will remove it from the forum of the House of Assembly.

So this

bill will amend the act, requiring the salary of justices to be adjusted

annually, based on the average annual salary of provincial court judges in Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI. So that, I think, will be a more effective way

for this issue of the salary increases for judges to be addressed. Some of the

other points that were raised in amendments in this legislation go to the

composition of the tribunal, and it will prescribe the composition of the

tribunal, set that out. There’s no issue with that.

It will

require the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint a tribunal to report on

salary and benefit of judges, and there’s no issue with that as well. There are

also timelines in place that will require the tribunal to submit a report to the

minister and the president of the Association of Provincial Court Judges, so

there are no contentious issues there either.

There’s

an appeal process in place as well. The bill requires that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to approve, vary or reject the report and

gives a set time for that of 60 days. If it’s not approved or varied or rejected

within the time frame by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, then that means it

will be considered accepted. There’s also gender-neutral language, which of

course we have no issue with.

So I

think the most important and significant amendment here is with respect to the

process and allowing this now to be removed from the House of Assembly. As

stated, we don’t want to see the spectacle that has existed to date in terms of

the comments that have been made. We need now to see a more effective process,

one that depoliticizes this entire issue. I think that this will accomplish

that.

We know

that other jurisdictions, it is my understanding, also have this process in

place, other jurisdictions within the country. I believe Ontario has this type

of formula and the federal government as well as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and

PEI. I’m not sure why it has taken so long for us to get to this process. I

believe that it has been a recommendation that was made many years ago by other

justices that government consider this kind of process, but for some reason that

did not get addressed and was not in place. At least now, we’re seeing it. So I

think that in that regard it’s a good thing.

As well,

with respect to the fact that we will still have a tribunal in place – under the

former system there was a tribunal but now, in addition to this formula, this

averaging of the salaries of Provincial Court judges, this salary calculation

will take place every year. It will automatically occur every year. Now, we

still see in conjunction with that, it’s my understanding, that there will still

be the tribunal performing an important role as well. They, of course, will be

assessing things from a broader scope and assessing other factors as well, which

may be unique to our province here in Newfoundland and Labrador which may not

apply in the other Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI. I think

that’s also a distinction to be made, and it is relevant as well.

I think

that sums up some of my points that I wanted to make on this legislation but,

again, I believe that it’s good piece of legislation. A long time coming, but at

least it’s here now and we would support that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just

very quickly, I will support this bill, as well. I’m not going to repeat all my

comments that I made when we approved the raise, I guess. But just to say that,

again, my only concern – I’m glad that we have this process now that takes it

outside the realm of the House of Assembly. It is far more palatable, if you

will, for me. But just for the record, I still do have a concern over the fact

that I don’t think this takes into account the financial circumstances of the

province and the ability of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay.

That’s

what got us to this point on this last motion, was the fact that we were broke –

still broke, still borrowing billions of dollars. So we’re all clear, while this

process may be no doubt independent, it depoliticizes it and everything else, at

the end of the day, we’ve got a select group of individuals who, regardless of

the fact that if we were about to declare bankruptcy, they’re getting their

raise anyway.

At the

same time, we’re saying to all of our other public servants who are still being

paid for by the public purse: I’m sorry, you don’t get an increase. We’re saying

to our nurses: I’m sorry, you don’t get an increase. We’re saying to our

teachers: I’m sorry, you don’t get an increase. We’re saying to our physicians:

We can’t afford to give you an increase. But we’re going to have this

independent process for a handful of people, albeit not a lot of money because

it is a smaller number of people, but the principle is the same. They are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just like everybody else in this room and

they’re getting special treatment. That is the bottom line.

Now, I

understand why we’re doing it and I’m going to support it but that is still the

bottom line and, on principle, I disagree with that.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I echo

the sentiments from my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands that it is good

that we’re taking this outside of the realm of the House of Assembly. We are the

pillars of government and the judiciary and those are all equal and those should

never cross each other.

Having

the tribunal report back to the House of Assembly for voting on, with the

recommendation that you have to vote yes to this, is hard to palate when you’re

in a room where you’re supposed to make decisions and vote with the will of your

constituents. So having it removed from this realm and into a realm where it is

debated and looked at separately and outside of here and still falls within the

rules of the Constitution is important.

We have

to take into account that there is a reason why their remuneration was not

supposed to be political, but if you bring it into the House of Assembly, it

instantly becomes political and that is a thing, too.

I’m glad

that we have this, but there are other aspects of this, too, that we need to

look at that. There are other times that something similar to this may happen

and maybe we should look at getting out in front of it. I know we’ve had debates

about our own remuneration in here – about should it come to floor of the House

of Assembly or not, these things, too.

So this

is one of those things where we look at now we found a solution to it that other

jurisdictions follow. We’re going to go follow along with our Atlantic

colleagues in the sense that we’re going to use their average so we have a

baseline, but if this is something we did now, where was it a few years ago? If

there were recommendations made in the past about it, I guess the warning wasn’t

heeded at that time.

But I

will support that we will move away from having this ever come to the House

again and that we actually have set timelines and a set system per se to do

this.

With

that, I do support this system and taking away the political side of it and, I

guess, keeping afoot with the Constitution Act and the role of the judiciary in

this province.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, the debate will be closed.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Speaker, I think I might have

misspoke on some dates regarding proposed amendments so just to be clear. One of

the amendments will require a tribunal to be established on or before June 1,

2022. I think I might have said 2020. And tribunal recommendations on or before

December 1, 2022. I think I might have said 2020. This tribunal will consider

the period April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2027.

Other

than that, I want to thank all of the speakers during second reading today. I

look forward to questions and Committee.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 44 now be read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44).

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 44)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that

this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 44.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 44,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.” (Bill 44)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

understand that the model that was used is based on the Atlantic Canada

provincial court judges, averaging the salaries of those courts.

Can you

please explain why this model was used?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Chair.

I guess

there are several reasons why this is used. One is that some of the tribunals,

certainly the most recent one, the Wicks tribunal that we’ve talked about here

today, has said that the Maritimes average is a good – if not the best –

comparator for Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court judges. It also makes

sense to use the entire Maritimes region as a comparator. If you do look at

salaries for other provincial court judges in other jurisdictions, outside of

the Maritimes, it actually is quite a bit higher than Atlantic Canada. So we

felt that using the Maritimes average was an appropriate comparison for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We did

also discuss the use of a formula with the Provincial Court judges’ association.

So they were well aware and thought it was a good idea to use the formula going

forward.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Looking at the court case

of Justice Daniel Boone, I know there was reference made there to a negative

resolution method. However, there was a decision made to choose the yearly

automatic salary adjustments tied to average salaries of Atlantic Canada

provincial court judges.

So why

was the adoption of the negative resolution method not chosen?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

The salaries are set, as the

Member outlined there, with regard to that legislation and the Maritimes

averages. The tribunal then, respectively – eventually when we catch up on the

last two years – will review the adequacy of those salaries going forward. When

the report is presented, the LGIC then has an obligation review the report and

to vary it or approve it or make adjustments as the LGIC sees fit.

One

provision that we’ve added here, I think, is the negative resolution, where if

nothing is done – it’s going to be now in

section 28.2(6). If

Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not act on it, which as we have seen in the

past, governments have not acted on tribunal reports, the recommendation shall

be considered to be accepted if nothing is done. So that is a negative option

there, and it does put a positive requirement on the government of the day to do

something with the report and not just sit on it, because if they do sit on it,

then they will be implemented pursuant to the legislation.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

So I know also that the

judge in the decision also referenced the fact that discussions only really got

it started three years after an order by Justice Faour. Can you explain why

there was a delay of three years?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

I can’t explain why there was

a delay. Certainly, the reason that we’re bringing this legislation forward is

to avoid those delays and, as I just talked about, this new

section of the

legislation will essentially eliminate any possibility of delay once the report

is delivered to the minister.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you.

believe we have 24 Provincial Court judges in our province. I’m wondering about

how many judges are in these other specific jurisdictions of Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and PEI. Because under their legislation I know that they have also

prescribed numbers of judges that are in place.

I’m just

wondering in regard to the issue of workload, how will that be a factor for us,

where we have 24 judges? I mean if you have double the number of judges when

you’re having these kind of assessments take place, that’s going to impact the

outcome.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

The workload comparison is

why we chose to go with the Maritime average; it’s the best region to compare

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to, not just for judges’ salaries, but a lot of

things in our lives. We’re the most similar to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI

than we are to, say, BC, which has large cities like Vancouver, Ontario, which

has large cities like Toronto and Ottawa. It is a different region than what we

have, it is a different makeup than what we have, and judges face different

issues in those regions compared to the Maritimes.

So we

did feel that the Maritime average and the Maritime makeup of those courts and

the judiciaries in those provinces best matched Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you.

I’m

aware that the second Wicks Tribunal looked at various factors, one of them

being the cost of living. I guess that would also apply here with respect to

Newfoundland having a unique situation in terms of cost of living, perhaps the

highest cost of living in most of these provinces. So does that factor into it

again, why the Atlantic provinces were used as opposed to say comparing to

Ontario, for example?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Yes, again, we did feel that

it was the region that would be the best comparator, to compare Newfoundland and

Labrador to, as opposed to centres that just don’t have the same geographic

makeup, the same population makeup that we have here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Also noting that a lot of those salaries in the other jurisdictions

are significantly higher than in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout

Maritime Canada as well.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

I think that that

concludes my questions.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I’m just wondering, in coming up with this new process, was there any

consideration at all given to the concept of the province’s ability to pay?

That’s kind of how we got here to begin with. I’m just wondering about even that

court ruling that went against us, it’s fine for a court to rule and say well,

there was a legitimate process in place, there was a tribunal and here’s what

they recommended, and the House of Assembly weren’t prepared to approve it; but

if that tribunal from the beginning was arguably flawed in that it never even

took into consideration our fiscal circumstance, then maybe the ruling wasn’t

based on all the information.

I’m just

wondering, in terms of that ruling, was there even any consideration given to

our fiscal circumstance? Why would there not be something brought forward with

what you’re doing here today to take that into account?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you very much for the

question.

A couple

of things on that is that both sides to this, the judges and the government, I

guess, for lack of a better way of saying it, do get to make submissions to the

tribunal. If one of those submissions on behalf of the government is the ability

for the government to pay, the government of the day at the time, those

submissions will and can be made to the tribunal. So the tribunal is obligated

to review those and look at those and discuss those before it makes any final

recommendations.

Now, the

way the legislation is drafted, of course, it’s telling the tribunal that it

does need to apply the Maritime average. The tribunal can comment on the

adequacy of it. At the end of the day, it’s the LGIC that has to accept, vary or

accept the recommendations in the tribunal report.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Minister.

Basically then, if what we’re doing here has to be the average, then the fact

that we could be – based on that, we could be on the verge of bankruptcy and

everybody in government could be taking a rollback in salary, all our civil

servants, theoretically. But if the Atlantic average is what it is, they’re

getting their raise regardless of that circumstance. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

It’s also an assumption with

that question that the Maritime judges’ salaries are going up. So I can’t talk

in the future about what the decisions of Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick

governments are going to be. But one of the reasons that we do look at the

region, I think