PDF Version

May 23, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 23

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper ):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend

The Schools Act, 1997 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, seconded by the

Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 15,

An Act Respecting

Tenancies Of Residential Premises be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises,” read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS :

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS :

I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 16,

An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that Bill 16,

An Act To Amend The Court Security Act,

2010 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.” (Bill

16)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS :

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Today,

we stand here in this House to debate Bill 16, which is

an Act to Amend the

Court Security Act, 2010, which as you can see from its title, came into force

in 2010, actually on October 1.

Basically, this legislation is the statutory basis on which sheriff's officers

provide security for a significant portion of our court facilities, whether it's

the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court or Provincial Court. This legislation allows

them to handle the security program within these facilities.

It deals

with methods of screening, it deals with access to restricted areas,

authorization to relieve individuals of weapons, prevent them from entering a

courthouse or court areas if they do not comply, and it also makes an offence

for anybody but authorized personnel to possess a weapon in a court area, to

enter such an area after being refused entry and to refuse to leave a court area

after being asked to do so.

When we

talk about courts in general, and I've spent a fair bit of time in most of the

courts in the province, and depending on the level of court, security can be an

issue. Courts are places often filled with emotion and high emotion. If you look

at our unified family court over on Kings Bridge Road and, again, depending on

the jurisdiction, family court is something that, depending on where you are, if

you're in Labrador or Central, it has dual jurisdiction in that it's Supreme

Court or Provincial. On the West Coast and here on the Avalon, it's governing by

our Trial Division, our Supreme Court as it's now referred.

Family

court is something that has a tremendous amount of emotion. When we look at

Provincial Court especially, or recently in Supreme Court where we've had an

explosion really in the number of jury trials. These are places filled with –

when you look at the subject matter we're dealing with, it's emotion on all

sides. It's difficult.

That's

why we do have the need for security in these buildings. Unfortunately, I've

seen situations where there's been hostility, tense moments and I've seen,

unfortunately, members of our court security be assaulted at times. It can be an

extremely difficult place to work.

I think

this is the right juncture. This is my first time speaking to Court Security in

the House. I wasn't around in 2010, but what I would say is this is an

opportunity for me to say thank you to our sheriff's officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

They are tremendous men and

women who, again, all over this province, who have very tough jobs. I've had an

opportunity to meet with them on a number of occasions.

We have

a High Sheriff, a gentleman named Dan Chafe, who's been on the job for about

three years or so now, who I think has done a tremendous job. He's working with

a group of people that really handle very trying circumstances, handle people at

the height, or the depths, of their emotions, we'll say. It's a trying

environment. The need for security, I think, is crucial; it's important and we

recognize that.

The

purpose of the amendment that we're making here today, which when you look at it

is not significant in terms of the number of sections that are being amended,

but it's a change that basically we're expanding the definition of a court area

to include a building, a part of a building, land or space used by an inquiry.

So when

this was first brought in we dealt with courtrooms, but we all know – and it's

not just something that we've been dealing with recently – inquiries are events

that have been happening for some time. In many cases, inquiries are dealt with,

not in court space, but often in space that's outside of a court but it really

is a court-like atmosphere.

It often

has the presence of a judge, staff, lawyers, witnesses and can often be tense.

You look back through our history at the subject matter that we've done

inquiries in, these are things that people have a high emotional connection to.

In many cases, we're dealing with tragedy. People can have a very strong opinion

one way or the other, and that's fine.

What

we're discussing here today is an amendment that will, basically – it's also

going to have a House, I guess, clean-up provision here, where recently we made

changes to our Court of Appeal to allow it to be its own division.

So what

we're doing is replacing all the references to Trial Division with Supreme

Court. There's a little clean-up

section there. So under paragraph 2(

a) court

now means the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador, where before it may have said Supreme Court, Appeal

Division and Trial Division.

The

other thing is that we're changing paragraph 2(

b) to discuss what a court area

encompasses. This is just basically adding a

section there that says any

building, space or land that is used by a court or inquiry and designated as a

court area or regulation. Then we further go into what an inquiry means. An

“'inquiry' means a commission of inquiry established under

Part 1 of the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 or an

inquiry conducted under

Part II of the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 .”

So what

this is, is we had a request come in from Justice LeBlanc and his team, which

was, we know where the inquiry's being held. They wanted to specifically have

the provision of security provided by the sheriff's officers, which I think is a

tremendous vote of confidence for these individuals.

Having

security at an inquiry is certainly not an issue that I have any problem with. I

think that we have to do everything to ensure that our inquiries proceed on an

orderly basis and that security is protected for all. Again, this inquiry will

be no different than the others in the sense that it is something that has a

significant amount of public interest.

We have

a number of opinions in many cases. Certainly, we're not dealing with a loss of

life as we've had to deal with in other inquiries, but this is something that

holds a significant amount of importance as it relates to just about every

individual in this province. There's a lot of public discussion about it and

there's probably going to be a lot of public interest – again, people going into

this space.

During

this process, Justice LeBlanc and his team indicated that they wanted the

provision of security to be done by sheriff's officers. The High Sheriff, Mr.

Chafe, indicated that this would not be an issue. There was money allotted for

this and allowed under the budget to ensure that we had the presence of security

provided by the sheriff's officers at this inquiry.

The

reason that we're not just saying a particular space is that this inquiry will

have meetings not only here in St. John's, but also in Happy Valley-Goose Bay

and the sheriff's officers will be on site in both locations. In order to

facilitate or to allow that, we need to make a change to this act to allow for

sheriff's officers to provide their services. As I've outlined earlier, what the

act already does, in order to allow them to do this at an inquiry or in a

non-court space, we had to add an inquiry to that definition.

So it's

a pretty simple amendment that we're making here. I think I've indicated the

reasons why we're doing this. This was upon the request of Justice LeBlanc. I

thank him and his staff for taking on this really significant task for the

people of this province. I mean, this is not something that – it's a long-term

commitment and there's a significant amount of work that's already gone in and

we haven't even started the hearing process. We announced the inquiry back in

November and we know that the work is going to go on up to or before December

31, 2019.

We know

that it's the commissioner's intention to conduct public hearings starting

sometime, they figure, in September 2018 up to June 2019. We know the inquiry is

located here in St. John's and they will be holding public hearings in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay at a space that's undetermined as of yet. Wherever that space

is going to be will be covered off by the amendment that we're making here

today.

Without

this legislative authority, the inquiry would have to go out and retain private

security services and they would not have the same authority that sheriff's

officers carry under the Court Security

Act , which is again one of the

reasons that we're making this amendment here today.

Having

the ability to use reasonable force to remove a person that may cause a

disturbance or refuse entry and to rely on police, they would have to rely on

police. So not only would you have security but you also have to have, possibly,

the provision of police. We have people that handle security. We trust their

decisions, we trust their discretion and we trust their ability to do

assessments and analysis of each situation.

Also,

sheriff's officers in this province are not issued fire arms, but they do wear

vests, have batons, OC spray and stuff like this. They have different

authorities and powers that are not conveyed to private security, plus whatever

the cost would be for private security to do something like this.

I think

the main point that I want to stress here is this was the request that came from

the commissioner. This was something that the commissioner wanted. It seems to

me a reasonable request. Each commissioner will make decisions as to how their

inquiry will proceed. In this case, there was a request to have sheriff's

officers do this. In order to facilitate that, we are here in this House today

to discuss this amendment to the Court Security Act, which certainly we will be

supporting. We will do everything in our power to ensure that this inquiry not

only happens, as we've called it, but we want to make sure that it happens in a

timely fashion and with the people and the participants that are involved

feeling that they are secure at all times during this very important work that

they are doing.

On that

note, I look forward to the debate and to the Committee stage. Hopefully, I can

answer questions as they come in.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise to speak to Bill 16,

An Act to Amend the Court Security Act,

2010. The minister has taken us through some of the rationale for the particular

amendment, the allowance for the amendment and what it would involve, and

certainly the authority or the direction now that would be given to the

sheriff's officers in regard to providing security services.

addition to what they currently do related to the court facilities, the act does

define or redefine the court area meaning a building, part of a building, land

or space used by a court or inquiry and designated as a court area by

regulation. Regulation means that following this amendment, regulations will be

drawn up and approved by the Executive Council related to that definition of the

court area.

The

minister said when he introduced the amendment – he spoke to the request from

Justice LeBlanc and he related it to the upcoming inquiry, and a means to

provide security services in that particular environment. From my understanding

of what he said, that came directly from Justice LeBlanc.

While

that may have precipitated the discussion we're having here today, this is more

broad reaching, I guess, than that particular inquiry. It would be all future

inquiries and as well would be anything related to the court area as defined in

the amendment and would be further defined with regulations that come in at some

point in time.

Maybe

the minister could speak to that – we'll probably ask a couple of questions when

we get to Committee in regard to that and what his vision is in those

regulations and further defining the court area as suggested in the amendment.

The bill

also changes the phrase “Trial Division” to “Supreme Court,” in line with the

changes made by the Court of Appeal Act

previously amended. As was talked about, the sheriff's officers can only

provide security at services to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and

Provincial Court. This is asking, through this amendment, to expand their role

and the security services they would provide in particular environments as

related to an inquiry where they may not always be stationary or in one

location. There could be activities right around the province in regard to

hearings or engagement sessions to deal with the general public on a particular

topic or a particular inquiry.

So what

this is suggesting is that in those cases that security service through the

sheriff's officer would be provided and would be part of that inquiry and part

of the commissioner at the time who's appointed to oversee the security of

particular happenings of that inquiry.

I know

in the briefing there was indications that the use of sheriff's officers in

previous inquiries has been inconsistent. So it would be good, too, in Committee

if we heard from the minister what's transpired in the past in regard to the

services that were provided. What were the difficulties with that? What were the

challenges with that? While there's a request coming from Judge LeBlanc, it

certainly would be nice to hear what we're transitioning from to get to this

amendment we're talking about here today. What were some of the challenges that

were experienced in the past? How were they dealt with? How some of those

challenges could be certainly improved or not received based on the amendment we

got here and what we're talking about in this particular amendment.

I think

the minister talked about budgeting. Obviously, there's additional time

allotted, human resources for an activity like this related to an inquiry. I

think he indicated that the Sheriff's Office indicated that budgeting was

allocated or it's within their capacity to do that. Any amendments or any

regulatory change that affects human resources, it's always important that

there's some discussion on the ability to finance that, where that financing

needs to come from and what the cost is predicted to be; recognizing, obviously,

that this is related to one inquiry. You may be able to estimate what costs

would be for this particular inquiry based on travel, based on the number of

days that the Commissioner expects to sit. In some fiscal year, if there was an

inquiry or some other activity that's outside the norm that required the

security services, it may be something at that particular time would have to be

dealt with, because it may not have been predicted in a fiscal year that it

would occur.

As well,

there was discussion about the fact that it's been requested, the security

services. In the past, if inquiries were used, there would have been a

requirement to do it through private security firms. There was some discussion

too from the minister about the authority and the power of the sheriff's

officers and what they can exercise in their activities as opposed to a private

security firm and what they would be able to do and what their authority would

allow them to do.

What I

understand from the minister is that recognizing the request, recognizing the

power of the sheriff's officers, you're suggesting they would be best suited to

deal with the particular request that's been asked for here. Obviously, it's in

accordance with the judicial system and the role that the sheriff's officers now

play and then expanding that to inquiries by a Supreme Court judge that would

oversee as Commissioner, an inquiry.

The

conduit for the security services from the Sheriff's Office obviously would be

consistent in this case. If you went outside and had to hire a private security

firm you get into – certainly, reasonably to get into issues of experience,

experiences of that firm dealing with this particular environment. Obviously a

sheriff's officer, I guess you could assume would have that continuity in terms

of the type of security, the environment and the things that may or may not be

encountered.

From the

environment point of view in terms of the reason for this, at times, as was

mentioned, emotions could run high. I guess one issue we need to discuss and

talk about is the right for people to express their concerns whether in protest

or some other means, but as long as that doesn't infringe on processes and the

function or activity at the time and is in keeping with normal protocol in

regard to demonstrations and those types of things. I think what this talks

about is a unique situation, just to ensure that security is maintained in an

environment that's been suggested.

We'll

have some questions for the minister when we go through Committee, just on some

of the references in the amendment, particularly related to the court area and

is referenced by regulation, how that would be defined. As well, if there are

any thoughts outside of an inquiry, where this security services may be

required. Taking into account the new definition of court and court area, well

particular court area where there would be other incidents where it could be

foreseen that these services would be required and would have to be executed

based on an inquiry, but based on any other activity that may be foreseen that

would require this type of security.

We'll

look forward to hearing further debate, and certainly look forward to going into

Committee and asking a few questions in regard to the amendment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We are,

as stated by my colleagues, debating –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Bill 16.

MS. ROGERS:

– Bill 16, the Court Security

Act. Thank you very much.

It's An

Act to Amend the Court Security Act. The bill amends the Court Security Act

to expand the definition of a court area to include a building, part of a

building, land or space used by an inquiry. I'd like to thank the good folks

from the Department of Justice who prepared us and gave us a briefing on this

bill.

It's an interesting time to receive the request to amend

this bill. From what we hear from the Minister of Justice, in fact the request

to have the Sheriff's Office provide the security for the inquiry on Muskrat

Falls came from the Commissioner, from Justice LeBlanc. I would imagine he made

an assessment and with his assessment decided that this is the way he would like

to be able to proceed with his inquiry by engaging the Sheriff's Office. Now we

don't know from either the briefing or what has been said to date, whether that

means a constant presence of sheriff's officers during the inquiry but we will

be able to ask the minister that.

The amendment to the bill replaces all references to Trial

Division with Supreme Court. Officials within the department confirm that the

commissioner of the Muskrat Falls inquiry has requested that security for the

Muskrat Falls inquiry and that it be conducted by the Sheriff's Office. We know

we can rely on the personnel of the Sheriff's Office. T hey

are well trained; they have a very clear mandate. They have been doing court

security for years. It's a very well-oiled machine. We can trust their expertise

and their skills. In many ways it makes sense that should security be required

for inquiries, that, in fact, it makes sense that we would have the Sheriff's

Office provide that security.

The

Court Security Act legislates the role of the Sheriff's Office in providing

court security. The act makes it an offence – we know within court buildings the

act makes it an offence to have a weapon in a court area, enter a court area

after being refused entry and refusing to leave a court area after being told

to.

That's

so important, Mr. Speaker, in our courts where very important business is

undertaken on behalf of the whole concept of justice in our province. Often in a

court proceeding, it's intense what happens at trial. It's very intense what

happens in our court area. Sometimes that's also the case in the inquiries.

The

current Sheriff's Office operates in Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and

Provincial Court. This amendment adds public inquiries as defined under the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 to the

definition of court areas under the Court Security Act. That means wherever the

business of an inquiry is taking place that can be considered the same as a

court area. It expands the mandate and the ability of the Sheriff's Office to

provide security for work that's being undertaken on behalf of the people of the

province.

When

providing security, private firms have to call the police for issues;

whereas

under this amendment, any public inquiry can request the services of the

Sheriff's Office to provide security.

There's

also a housekeeping amendment in this bill. That replaces the words Trial

Division with Supreme Court, which is in keeping with recent passing of the

Court of Appeal legislation which we handled and dealt with a little over a

month ago here in the House.

There

hasn't appeared to have been any real pressing need for additional security at

the most recent public inquiries. Also inquiries where there were issues that

would have been very intense, when we had the inquiry in the shooting death of

Mr. Dunphy.

One

would have thought there would have been a request for security and that because

of the public outcry and the protests that happened around that area. What's

really important, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe Justice LeBlanc's request has

come from a base of knowledge and in order to be able to fulfill the work that

he's been asked to do on behalf of the people.

We must

ensure that the public spaces of an inquiry are not foreboding, that they're not

difficult to access. When we look at what has happened with Muskrat Falls, the

frustration level of the people of the province is so high. It's so high because

of the way Muskrat Falls was rammed through our House of Assembly, the way

decisions were made, the way the previous administration took Muskrat Falls out

from under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board where they ignored

much of the Environmental Impact Statement.

People

are already very, very frustrated and feel so shut out of the process of

mandating Muskrat Falls. We have to make sure, Mr. Speaker, it's the very reason

that we have an inquiry, because of the people's dissatisfaction with how

Muskrat Falls was sanctioned. We have to ensure the inquiry is an open process

where the people of the province feel welcomed, where the people of the province

are not intimidated, where there is no atmosphere whatsoever of foreboding or

prohibition that would give the people of the province any feeling whatsoever

that they are not welcomed into the space where the inquiry is happening.

This is

a public inquiry that is brought about because of the mishandling of the Muskrat

Falls file and the mishandling of the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls. It's really

important that everything is done to make that space open, accessible and

welcoming, and that it proves that there will be accountability and transparency

in every step of the way that this inquiry is undertaken.

learned in Estimates, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had spent over $8.9 million in

protecting the movement of transformers destined for the Muskrat Falls Project –

$8.9 million and possibly more. All of that will be charged to the province, all

of that the people's money. There are many in the area in Happy Valley-Goose Bay

and areas where they felt totally intimidated by the abundance of RCMP officers,

of police in their communities. There were no incidents, there was no threat.

We have

to be careful, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to be judicious about the types of

security that are needed, particularly around the area of Muskrat Falls, around

the issue of Muskrat Falls. We must be very, very cautious to protect that

atmosphere of openness and welcome. That's what's at risk here. It is my hope

that Justice LeBlanc and his team will choose to have the presence of the

sheriff's officers as a way to ensure a smooth operation, as a way to ensure the

people of the province are welcomed to all spaces where the inquiry is

undertaken. If not, then it perpetuates once again the missteps that we have

seen, almost the injustice that we have seen in the sanctioning and the ramming

through of Muskrat Falls on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look

forward to asking questions in Committee about the specific details of the

intention of how the Sheriff's Office will be used, at what times, under what

circumstances or whether it will be continuous during every process of the

inquiry. I haven't heard about any incidents so far in any of the operations of

the inquiry whether or not there have been any threats. I believe that if

security is required, to use the Sheriff's Office is the appropriate security to

use because they are well trained, because they are hired by the people of the

province to ensure safe and smooth operations of anything that relates to

justice.

I will

take my seat, Mr. Speaker. My concern is to ensure a spirit of openness, of

welcoming is always present in every aspect of the inquiry on the issue of

Muskrat Falls.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

great to have an opportunity once again to speak and this time to Bill 16, An

Act to Amend the Court Security Act.

Mr.

Speaker, I could, for the most part, just say ditto to what the Member for St.

John's Centre just said. I will, for the record I suppose, just convey my own

thoughts, although they're very similar if not identical to what the Member just

said really.

Obviously, what we're doing here is we're going to be allowing for the sheriff's

officers to provide security at not just the Muskrat Falls inquiry but all

future inquires. It would give the ability for the Department of Justice, when

we have inquires in the future, to actually have the sheriff's officers present

providing security services. Now, obviously, the impetus for this is the Muskrat

Falls inquiry and a request from Commissioner LeBlanc. If we're going to have

security it does make sense that it would be the Sheriff's Office, given the

fact that the Sheriff's Office is already providing security at the courts as we

know.

All

we're doing in this bill, of course, is we're going to define a court area –

make an amendment, we're going to define a court area meaning a building, part

of a building, land, space used by a court or inquiry and designated as a court

area by regulation. In other words, we can now say that if we're having an

inquiry and that inquiry is not taking place in an actual courthouse – they rent

a building somewhere or property somewhere to hold that inquiry – then that

would be designated a court area; therefore, the sheriff's officers could be

used as security.

understanding is they would simply be there to screen people – and this is how I

understand it, I guess the minister will clarify – as they're coming in. As I

understand it, we were told they would have those metal detectors like they have

at the courthouse now, like we have here in the House of Assembly that people

would walk through. Attached to that metal detector will be some sort of an

X-ray machine for bags to go through to make sure there are no weapons concealed

in a bag or whatever. Once people get inside the inquiry space, then the

sheriffs would be there to maintain order and to ensure that nobody acts

inappropriately or bursts out into some kind of violent rage or whatever the

case might be, and to remove individuals if necessary.

course, by having the sheriff's officers there as opposed to a private security

firm, the sheriff's officers would actually have the ability to sort of take the

matter, a hands-on approach, if it was deemed necessary, to deal a violent

individual and so on if that were to happen.

I would

say, Mr. Speaker, that in principle and in general I certainly support the

concept of having security at our courts. I support the concept of having

security here at this House of Assembly. I support the concept of having

security at an inquiry because it is very important that when we have these

public proceedings that people can go, they can participate, and they can feel

comfortable – all parties can feel comfortable that their health and safety are

not going to be placed in jeopardy.

We know

that there are people out there, for whatever reason, that could be a threat.

That's reality. There are people out there that could be a threat to the health,

safety and security of people involved in a court proceeding or involved in an

inquiry such as this. It's important that we put measures in place to ensure

that everybody is safe. That's what this is about; it's about safety. I support

that 100 per cent.

With

that said, I would agree again with my colleague from St. John's Centre that we

know that there are a lot of people who have very strong views as it relates to

this particular inquiry, certainly all inquiries, with strong views I'm sure

with the ER/PR or with the Dunphy inquiry and so on. The Muskrat Falls inquiry,

we have seen protests and different things that have occurred. And I can

understand where there would be a fear that somebody could just go in there and

put the place up. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

By the

same token we also need to ensure that – and this is the only piece where I see

a little bit of concern is when it says court area means a building, part of a

building, land and space used by the court. My only concern would be, and I

would hope that when we're talking land and space – say if the Labrador Land

Protectors or people who are supportive of it decided that they were going to

hold a little protest, vigil, rally – call it what you will – outside of the

building, and assuming that they are not destroying property or threatening

people but they are just having a peaceful protest, I would hope that the

sheriff's officers are not going to come and kick them off the property, or tell

them that they don't have the right to free speech and so on.

Now, I'm

sure that's not the intent, I'm sure it's not. But where it says land, so it's

not specific to just inside that inquiry space, inside that building, it says

the land. As long as people are assembling peacefully, I would just hope and

assume that if they want to hold a rally or whatever they want to do, to have

their opinions heard on the matter that we're not going to shut down free

speech. I'm sure the minister has no intentions of doing that. I'm not

suggesting he does. I'm sure he doesn't actually, but the way it's written that

someone could conclude that, I suppose, potentially.

Barring

that, as long as the inquiry is open to the public – and it should be open for

any member of the public to be able to go and listen to the proceedings and so

on. I understand that will be the case. As long as people can come in and have

that ability and they're not going to be hampered in any way, they're not going

to be harassed, they're not going to be intimidated and all that kind of stuff,

which I'm sure they're not, then I see no problem whatsoever in having security

there to make sure everybody is safe. Because that's what it's about, it's about

the safety of all, regardless what side of the coin you may fall on in terms of

the Muskrat Falls inquiry, whether you're pro-Muskrat, anti-Muskrat, whatever

your issues may be, it's about providing a safe space for everybody.

If that

would appear to be the intent of this, and with that in mind, I have some

questions that I just sort of indicated and they're similar to what my other

colleagues have raised. Perhaps they'll get to it in Committee before I do and I

won't need to ask questions; that's fine enough. But as long as those two

principles are there, focus on safety but, by the same token, allowing open

access for people and not trying to trample people's rights and that fair

balance is there and it's done properly, then I have no issue with it

whatsoever.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the commentary from my colleagues across the way. I'm sure they'll

have questions during Committee stage, which I'll try my best to answer. In

regard to the one point, I will try my best to address it now while it's fresh,

is the commentary from the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – just a couple

of points. I believe that the reason that you would have land and space, not

only would it be a legislative term to make sure that we cover off everything,

but I would assume that part of inquiry space is the ability to get into said

inquiry space. I don't think there was any thought process behind somebody

having their Charter rights infringed in relation to assembly, free speech and

whatnot, but everybody also has a right to get to these spaces. I understand

where the Member is going, so I think I've covered that off. That's why the

terminology would be as it is.

The

second part, I just want to correct him because he said – I know he didn't mean

it this way, but again, we are doing this on the record and somebody might look

back and the Member said I don't believe the minister would do that. What we

need to understand is that the commission is independent. I have no say in how

this commission of inquiry is going to proceed. It was handed over to Justice

LeBlanc. He and his team are now in charge. What we are doing here today is

bringing forward legislation that will cover off a request that's been made for

this inquiry or some inquiry down the road.

As it

relates to the security requirements of this inquiry or any of the procedures of

this inquiry that would fall upon the commissioner, what we are doing is

facilitating a request to allow for the security for this inquiry and going

forward.

On that

note, I'll move on to the Committee stage.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 16 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister and Community Services, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 16,

An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.” (Bill 16)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for

the minister, I wonder if he could comment on the definition “'court area' means

a building, part of a building, land or space used by a court” or inquiry “and

designated as a court area by regulation.”

Obviously, security now ties to services related to court facilities. This is an

exercise in attaching it to inquiries. Does he foresee any other area where

there could be expansion in these services or is this just, in his view, tied to

commission of inquiry and the space that would be involved today and in the

future?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

There's

no intention, that's been identified to me, that this would be applied

elsewhere. This was specifically a request that's come in. Now what I can say,

because I think this was brought up earlier, sheriff's officers have been used

at inquires in the past but there's no rule basically as to what's been done.

I think

in the past there's been police presence; there have been officials with

Transportation and Works presence; there can be private security presence, and

there's been sheriff's presence. In this case, since the

Court Security Act, 2010 came in where we designate court areas and

we've had the request come in now for sheriff's officers to be used, that's why

we needed to change court area.

Again,

going forward, it's up to the commissioner of any inquiry to figure out how they

want to run that and security presence that would be put in place. This would

cover that off into the future.

If there

was some other request that came in as it relates to any security in any court

facility, I'm always willing to hear that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

question in regard to the financing and the funds to cover such services; I

think the minister in his commentary in debate mentioned about funds were

already available.

Would

there be, in the future, allocations of funds of a line item for this service or

would you expect that it would be covered off in current budget of an annual

basis in a fiscal year?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

This particular cost was

covered off. It is $89,340 to cover off three officers for which there were the

human resources that were available. This would be covered off under the inquiry

budget.

When

they do up the inquiry they come forward with a proposed budget, and this would

be a very small portion of that cost. Usually it's: what is the technology cost?

What is the legal cost? What is the salary cost, and everything else? This would

be something that would be put into – this was already allotted for. They had

anticipated security costs. Going forward, it depends on how much security they

would want to avail of depending on the inquiry.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like

to ask the minister: Does he know whether or not this is a continuous presence

of security at the inquiry, or is it periodic? Does he have any idea of that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

That

would be a decision of the commissioner. I haven't specifically had that

indicated. My guess is it would be continuous. Any time that it is open to the

public their presence would be there, whether it's in Labrador or here in St.

John's. That's my guess. That would be a better question for the commissioner.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask

the minister: Would this require any new hires for the Sheriff's Office?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

No. The High Sheriff has

indicated they have sufficient human resources to handle this so that there were

no hires necessary.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When the

commission of inquiry meets in Happy Valley-Goose Bay would they be using

sheriff's officers who are already in Happy Valley-Goose Bay or would there be a

contingent that would travel with them?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

That would be a decision of

the High Sheriff, but I would hope they would have the resources in Labrador to

cover this just to save on the travel costs that would be there. It would be a

much more cost-effective move to have it done in Labrador. My understanding is

that won't be an issue but that will be a Dan Chafe question.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Clause 2.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Mr. Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 16.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 16.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR.

WARR:

Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred

and have directed me to report Bill 16 without amendment.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 16 without

amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered

read a third time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading

of Bill 18.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources,

that Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now read a second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now

read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 18, which

is

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act. All of us have a role to play in

increasing immigration to Newfoundland and Labrador, ensuring that more

newcomers choose to settle in this province and build a brighter future for

themselves, our communities and the province.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, is focused on ensuring

that Newfoundland and Labrador become a destination of choice for immigrants and

their families, while also encouraging Newfoundlanders and Labradorian abroad to

move back home. In The Way Forward: A

vision for sustainability and growth in Newfoundland and Labrador a

provincial government committed, our government committed to developing a

five-year plan to increase immigration by 50 per cent and welcoming

approximately 1,700 immigrants annually by 2022.

Collaboration, engagement and partnership are integral

to the immigration action plan in recognition that all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians play a role in immigrant attraction and retention. We must

strengthen community partnerships and maximize pathways to immigration, improve

immigration retention and celebrate the multiculturalism and diversity of our

province.

Working towards the goals of increasing immigration and

strengthening our economy, Mr. Speaker, I'm in the process of expanding

the Provincial Nominee

Program to include two new business immigration categories under our Provincial

Nominee Program, and they are the international entrepreneur and the

international graduate entrepreneur.

The

Provincial Nominee Program allows Newfoundland and Labrador to nominate

applicants who qualify under provincially established criteria for permanent

resident status. It does this, Mr. Speaker, by offering a quicker immigration

process for qualified skilled workers, international graduates and their

families who wish to settle permanently in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

offering assistance from provincial program officers who are able and available

to explain the program requirements and the processes.

The

objectives of introducing business immigration categories support an advanced

entrepreneurship and innovation in the province. They support labour market

growth. They assist in advancing the province's business innovation agenda. They

strengthen the province's ties to the global economy and they grow the

province's economy and help address demographic challenges.

While I

make further descriptions, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour, we've had discussions. It became clear in our discussions

that for the program to fully meet potential in increasing immigration and

business activity the Corporations Act ,

which is administered by Service NL, should be amended to allow participants in

the new categories to more easily incorporate a business.

Mr.

Speaker, incorporating a business provides additional legal protections that a

sole proprietorship does not have. The act of incorporating creates a new legal

entity which has broader rights and obligations under Canadian law. Such an

entity can act to acquire assets, obtain a loan, enter into contracts, sue or be

sued and can even be found guilty of committing a crime.

Incorporation limits the liability of a corporation's shareholders. Corporations

are taxed separately from their owners. This means that individuals may gain

certain fiscal advantages by incorporating, especially if revenues pass a

certain point.

Also,

raising money is often easier for corporations than it is for other forms of

business. For example, a corporation would have the option of issuing bonds and

share certificates to investors. Corporations are also often able to borrow

money at lower rates than the rates offered to other types of businesses.

Service

NL maintains a registry of companies which can be accessed through the Companies

and Deeds Online or CADO, for short. Corporations are required to provide the

annual filings and you can look up any company on the CADO to determine if they

are in good standing and being compliant. Sole proprietorship and partnerships

are not required to be listed in the registry.

As the

legislation currently stands, temporary residents are not eligible to

incorporate a business on their own, as at least 25 per cent of directors must

be Canadians as defined by the act. Similar to Newfoundland and Labrador's

existing requirements, the federal government as well as Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and Ontario require that a minimum of 25 per cent of the directors of a

corporation be residents of Canada. Other jurisdictions are considering whether

to introduce a similar residency requirement.

The

federal government, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario qualify the minimum

number of directors required to be Canadian residents when the number of

directors is four or less. In these instances, at least one director must be a

Canadian resident. Therefore, participants in the program would not be able to

incorporate on their own or with other participants without seeking out resident

Canadians to serve as directors.

Mr.

Speaker, this can be difficult as, oftentimes, immigrants do not have ties to

resident Canadians willing to act as a director. From a regulatory perspective,

the residency requirement is key to reduce the potential of fraud, negligence,

flight risk and increase accountability. If directors are resident Canadians

under the act, there are likely to be local assets from which judgments can be

satisfied.

Given,

Mr. Speaker, the regulatory concerns, I propose to broaden the incorporation

abilities only as far as necessary. This will be done by expanding the

definition of resident Canadian to include those persons that participating in

the international entrepreneur and international graduate entrepreneur

categories under the Provincial Nominee Program. Any participant removed from

the program would cease to be a resident Canadian under the act.

In order

to further mitigate any risk, participants and business operations in the

program would be robustly monitored by the Department of Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour for regulatory purposes and performance monitoring. After

careful consideration of the monitoring mechanisms that we'd be putting in

place, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to present Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act, to the House today to have continued second reading on that.

Mr.

Speaker, this is important for us as a government moving forward to make sure

that these amendments are necessary in order for us to move forward our

categories under the Provincial Nominee Program. Our government is working

closely with our federal partners to introduce two new categories under the

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. These categories are

international graduate entrepreneur and the international entrepreneur.

Introducing these two new categories under the Provincial Nominee Program is a

key commitment in The Way Forward on

immigration for Newfoundland and Labrador, the province's collaborative,

partnership-driven Immigration Action Plan.

During

public and stakeholder consultations on the development of the Immigration

Action Plan, we heard from the business community and international students

that introducing these two new categories will help us retain international

graduates who want to stay in the province.

It only

makes sense to do whatever we can to enable international graduates to invest

what they have learned right here in this province. In many cases, Mr. Speaker,

these international graduates have already been living in Newfoundland and

Labrador for several years – four or more, depending on their degree. They have

established their lives here, they have friends and they're involved in groups

and activities in their communities. We have heard many times that these

international graduates want to stay right here in this province, they want to

work here, they want to build their lives here, but right now their options are

limited.

Mr.

Speaker, I have spoken to many of these international graduates and I might add

that right now, Memorial University, for example, is depending on roughly about

16 per cent of the students at Memorial University who are international

students, and one-third of our students at Memorial are actually international

and Canadian from other provinces in Canada. So we're seeing a significant

number of international students who are choosing Memorial University, the

College of the North Atlantic and, in fact, some of our private training

institutions to further their education.

Introducing the international graduate entrepreneur and the international

entrepreneur categories will give them a pathway to permanent residency right

here in this province. The amendments to Bill 18 are an important step in our

work with the federal government to establish these new categories in

Newfoundland and Labrador. These amendments update the

Corporations Act to allow individuals

in these two categories to incorporate a business in this province.

Currently, temporary residents are not eligible to incorporate a business on

their own because 25 per cent of the corporations founding board of directors

must be made up of permanent residents or Canadian citizens. International

graduates and entrepreneurs often do not have ties to resident Canadians that

are willing to act as a director.

These

amendments will remove that barrier for individuals who are in Newfoundland and

Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. It will treat a participant in the program

as a resident Canadian for the purpose of being on a board, thereby more easily

meeting the 25 per cent requirement.

The

benefits of making this change are significant. Bill 18 will lead our

government's efforts to grow the provincial workforce and the economy. The

amendments will make it easier for international students and entrepreneurs to

establish themselves, create businesses and jobs in our province. All of us have

a role to play in increasing immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want

more newcomers to settle in the province and to build a brighter future for

themselves, for our communities and for our province.

I am

pleased to remind my hon. colleagues that 25 of the 39 initiatives of the

five-year Immigration Action Plan were initiated or implemented by the end of

2017-18 fiscal year. We established the minister's round table on immigration,

which held its inaugural meeting on February 7, 2018.

Mr.

Speaker, nearly 50 members of the round table include representative employers,

labour, community organizations and other stakeholders. We have two additional

round tables that will be held in 2018, with the next coming up in the very near

future.

Mr.

Speaker, it gave me, as minister, a great opportunity to sit around that table,

and those tables, and to get a feedback from stakeholders, from front-line

workers, from employers and from the labour to identify some of the concerns

that they had as new immigrants to this province. It was through these

discussions and the direction that was given that we felt it was important as a

government and as a department to ensure that we are positioning our province to

take advantage of all possible opportunities for immigration to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We also

established an interdepartmental committee on immigration, which facilities

better information sharing and collaboration between departments. We want to

make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do this right. The way in which we can do this

to ensure that we're getting the best results is to engage in the discussions

that we continue to have across departments.

This

committee has met twice, to date, and discussed a number of priority areas for

collaboration. This includes a focus on hiring skilled immigrants for hard-

to-fill positions and initiatives to promote diversity and multiculturalism in

the public service. Other ongoing initiatives include improving immigration

application processing, providing supply to third parties to deliver settlement

and integration services and supports, and enhancing and expanding our

immigration websites. Our government has also made significant progress in

providing support to third parties to deliver settlement services and support to

newcomers.

All of

these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, lead us into the two categories that we're going

to be including in our new Provincial Nominee Program. It also includes social

training and provide sponsorship coordination.

December, Mr. Speaker, we announced over $341,000 through the Newfoundland and

Labrador Settlement Integration Program for a variety of initiatives to expand

settlement and integration services and supports. Again, all of these making

sure that we're in line with implementing the two new categories that we're

getting.

Also, in

realizing that this may be an opportunity for us, in adding the two new

categories to our Provincial Nominee Program, we have worked with the

Association for New Canadians to open satellite offices in Labrador City, Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor so that when these

categories are added, Mr. Speaker, we will have a pan-provincial scope in

determining how these businesses will be set up.

Mr.

Speaker, also in addition to that we introduced the Atlantic Immigration Pilot

Program, which is the first of its kind in Canada, enabling employers to help up

to 442 newcomers annually settle in Newfoundland and Labrador, stay long term

and grow the local economy.

Our

government allocated funding to help internationally trained workers secure

employment in their fields through funding to enhance the provincial capacity to

recognize foreign qualifications. Through the Newfoundland and Labrador

Workforce Innovation Centre, we announced funding for Memorial University of

Newfoundland's Genesis Centre to increase entrepreneurship among women and

immigrants in the technology sector, and for the Association for New Canadians,

in partnership with Memorial University's Grenfell Campus, to connect former

refugees to the agricultural employment opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, we're introducing two new programs to provide international students

and graduates with the work placements to secure gainful employment and expand

their professional networks, encouraging them to remain in this province.

closing, Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on ensuring Newfoundland and

Labrador becomes an even more attractive destination of choice for newcomers to

live, to work and to raise their families. Immigration supports efforts to

encourage private sector job creation and economic growth as identified in

The Way Forward , the

Cabinet Committee on Jobs and

The Way Forward on Immigration in

Newfoundland and Labrador . These new categories will make it easier for

international students, for international graduates and for entrepreneurs to

create businesses in our province and to make Newfoundland and Labrador their

home.

The

amendments provide a way for newcomers to establish their own businesses,

creating employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and supporting the

growth of our labour market. This creates opportunities for innovation and helps

grow our economy. These new categories reflect our government's commitment to

work with the federal government to address a concern that was identified by the

business community and strengthen our ability to attract and retain immigrants.

We will

be able to promote Newfoundland and Labrador as a destination of choice, a

destination of opportunity for potential entrepreneurs in the provincial nominee

program. Only participants in the provincial nominee program will be able to

take advantage of these two new categories.

This

pool of potential entrepreneurs has already demonstrated a commitment to

remaining in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of them have lived here for years

as international students, and as they seek the provincial government's support

to obtain permanent residency in Newfoundland and Labrador, all international

entrepreneurs and graduate entrepreneurs will have requested to have their

business plans and finances assessed by an independent third party and will

agree to having their operations monitored during and after nomination to ensure

active management of businesses and residency's in the province.

Participants and business operations in the program will be robustly monitored.

We want to ensure that these new categories are a way to attract individuals to

live, to work and create businesses and employment opportunities in this

province. The checks and balances in place, through the provincial nominee

program, are a proven way to ensure the entrepreneurs in these new categories

are based in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the changes to the

Corporations Act and I ask support

from my hon. colleagues.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here this morning and speak on Bill 18. First I'd

like to just talk about the purpose of this act. This is a simple act that we're

adding to make the opportunity for businesses to expand in our province and for

new business to start.

The

purpose of the Corporations Act and

what we're doing here this morning is to add a couple of

definitions. One is the

immigration agreement, the other one is international entrepreneur and also

graduate entrepreneur. It also expands the definition of a resident Canadian.

That's important because – and I'll discuss that a little later. It's important

because what we're trying to do here today is to open Newfoundland and Labrador

up for business so that any business that can come forward and grow in our

province, which is a positive thing, will happen.

The

Corporations Act comes under Service

NL. The act covers a registry of companies and requires all limited liability

companies that operate in Newfoundland in Labrador are incorporated, registered

to do business in our province. That's important, because what this does,

liability companies are incorporated and this is to secure so that companies and

stakeholder companies cannot be held personally liable for debts or financial

losses. So it's important that we have corporations.

There

are some benefits also; there are benefits to being incorporated. The minister

already mentioned there are legal protections for liabilities and stuff like

that. It's easier, once you're incorporated, to raise money and to raise funds.

There's also, once you're incorporated, lots of tax advantages. Obviously, there

are some benefits also for government. It provides an opportunity that they can

pursue the assets of a corporation. Where a corporation fails or behaves badly,

then there are options for government to step in and be able to do something in

those cases.

Each

province in our country has different requirements when it comes to registry and

requirements basically for directors of corporations. Again, we're different in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister mentioned several other provinces, and

I'll mention them also, that have different requirements. You just can't

incorporate in every separate province. You have to do it in your own province.

Directors' responsibilities are for supervising activities of the corporation

and making decisions regarding those activities.

talked and the minister mentioned also; requirements under the

Corporations Act , in

section 174(1), and it's simple what it says

here. It says: “At least 25% of the directors of a corporation shall be”

residents of Canada. That's what we're doing here this morning. We're expanding

the residency and opening it up so that this makes an opportunity for immigrants

who want to start a company in this country to be able to do so, without just

having to have this 25 per cent. Sometimes they find it very difficult. It's

difficult to be able to get people to be directors in your company. Like I said,

under that it required the residents in order for a company to become

incorporated in our province.

Under

the current Corporations Act ,

section

2(y), residents of Canada are generally defined as individuals who are Canadian

citizens, or (iii) “a permanent resident within the meaning of the

Immigration Act ” who lives in Canada.

Twenty-five per cent residency requirement means that immigrants and

entrepreneurs have to find Canadian partners to be established. That's where

this is a problem, because if you're a new person coming in to the country,

sometimes it's a job to be able to get people to go along with your idea, go

along with how you want to start a company. It's the comfort that if want to be

a director or if you want to have people involved in your company, you got to

have assurances that you can count on that person. Sometimes it's difficult,

you're a new person; you're trying to start something. What we need in our

province and what we need in our country is for people to come in with new ideas

and new ventures to start something. So this is the problem that we find here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Service

NL officials stated the 25 per cent rule is considered – it's a problem for a

lot of people starting up these companies. It is important also when we look at

what the 25 per cent residency rule was put in there in the first place. It's

beneficial to companies also, because sometimes when you're coming to a new

culture, a new province in a new part of the world, it's nice to see the

perspective from the people, the culture that's here also. So it can be very

beneficial to a company that's starting off to come and understand the ways of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to understand our culture.

So it's

important that way for them to be able to familiarize themselves with what we

have and what Canadian businesses are set up for. That's the reason for it, but

we also have to recognize, though, that it's difficult for immigrants who want

to set up a corporation or business in our province to have the numbers of local

people to be able to do that. Sometimes this is a problem. What we're going here

today under this act, we're trying to make it easier for businesses to start in

our province.

There

are a number of provinces who've waived this – and the minister mentioned it –

the corporate directors having to be residents. They include BC, Quebec, Prince

Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As such, foreign individuals and

business wishing to register do not have to be appointed as a Canadian director

in these provinces.

While

recognizing that there are some barriers created by the residency rule, Service

NL acknowledged it would be practical to remove the 25 per cent requirement –

and we'll have some questions on that later on. Instead, government's

introducing amendments on the basis of this from Service NL working with the

Department of Advanced Education and Skills, and specifically, the Office of

Immigration and Multiculturalism within that department.

Officials in the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism responsibilities are

to administer the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. The

Nominee Program is currently a program that Canadian, Newfoundland and Labrador

introduced in 1999. It's a way for permanent residents who are skilled workers

and international graduates to attempt to work and live permanently in our

province.

In 2017,

the program was responsible for almost 50 per cent of the immigration to

Newfoundland and Labrador. So that program has been working well and it has

brought a lot of people to our province. Currently under the Newfoundland and

Labrador Provincial Nominee Program, there are three applicant categories.

International workers are seeking to be permanent residents here in Canada. It

has expressed entry into skilled workers and international graduates.

We have

to recognize in our province and in the country how important it is that we make

our province a place to come, how important it is for us to be able to open our

doors to international people that want to come here and work and start a

business. It's so important because what it does, it just broadens everything,

we get more people employed, it's great for our economy and it will attract new

people to come to our province. While we look at our province these days and

we're all about growth in population and ensuring that people stay here with

jobs and whatnot, this is really important that we recognize how important

immigration is to our province.

The

labour market itself, you look at some at some businesses and sometimes I'm

after hearing figures that when you start a business, the number of spinoffs

that come from that business is huge. Sometimes when you start a new business

it's not only that business, but it's the supplier, it's the people that work –

it could be delivery and it could be anything that generates from the business.

It's important that we make our doors open to the international community and to

immigrants that want to come here and start a business.

This is

important that we do this because we're in a competition. We're in a competition

with the rest of Canada, the rest of the world. When a person outside

Newfoundland and Labrador – one thing when they come and they look and they say

which country do I want to go to. They look at Canada and Canada is a very

positive country all over the world, and that's a place where they want to come.

Then,

within Canada, we're in competition with 10 other provinces and a territory. So

our province has to have the mechanisms in place to make sure that it's easy to

come here and set up a business. We have to ensure that people want to come here

and start a business.

I'm sure

that every province in Canada – I just mentioned a number of provinces that

don't even have the 25 per cent residency. In fact, I would say that's so they

can attract more immigrants to come and start a business in their province.

It's

very important. Like I said, what is happening here today, we're adding a couple

of categories: international entrepreneur and international graduate

entrepreneur, which will help establish – and this is going to be done through

the Provincial Nominee Program and the person coming to a country under these

categories – the change here this morning is before, like I said, what a

resident was, so they are going to be put in also as a resident of Canada.

Like I

said, the proposed change, basically Bill 18 is going to give us a definition of

the immigrant agreement, it's going to give us the definition of international

graduate entrepreneur and it's also going to expand the definition of a resident

of Canada to include both of those categories.

Mr.

Speaker, the amendment proposed, like I said addressed here today, officials of

the Office of Immigration states that the agreement in principle introduced in

these new categories will be updated by the Provincial Nominee Program and that

will be released later. For this reason, Service NL is not providing an exact

date of when those amendments will come into the

Corporations Act and when this will be put into force.

Just to

do a little overview of what we're talking about here today – and it's a

positive thing. It's important as a province that we do everything we can to

attract people to come to our province. We want our residents to stay in our

province. We want our population to grow. In order to grow, we have to have

businesses. In order to grow, we have to be attractive and make sure that we put

mechanisms that are in place so people want to start a business here, people

want to stay here, and that our population that's here now don't move away

because the opportunities are not here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So it's

very important that we have our

Corporations Act that are able to set up these businesses, that they have

the ability to do so. What we're doing here today is to make sure that

immigrants that come to this province have the opportunity to be able to start a

corporation. And if we don't do it here in this province, we don't make it

attractive in this province, what normally happens, it gets moved on to other

places.

again, just to say that the three new

definitions is Immigration Agreement

refers to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration Agreement, and that

was done in July 7, 2016. Any amendments to this agreement is under

section 2.1

of the agreement. An international entrepreneur describes an individual who is a

member of the international category established in accordance with the

Immigration Agreement. Again, that's under

section 2, and it's (q.1). An

international graduate entrepreneur refers to an individual who is a member of

an international category established in accordance with the Immigration

Agreement, and again that's under

section 2 also.

So the

other major part, like I said, is adding those

definitions, and the three

definitions are important. What this does, the whole thing what we're trying to

do here today, is to expand what the Canadian resident is considered when it

comes to our act and what they need in order to get to 25 per cent in order to

start corporation of this company.

resident Canadian currently refers to an individual who has Canadian citizenship

or is a permanent resident within means of the

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ,

and that's with Canada. So what we're doing today is basically we're expanding

that to include international entrepreneur and international graduate

entrepreneur. The act will come into force in the future and it will be

proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

In a

nutshell, it's a good bill. Anything that we can do in this province to increase

business, any time we increase business we're increasing people coming to our

province, and hopefully the spinoffs from the business – and any time you get

some new ideas in any culture or any place at all, it's great to have it and

people all over the world can bring new ideas and expand what we have ongoing

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's a

good opportunity. There are some questions that I will be asking when we do get

into Committee, but overall it's a good move. Maybe there are some other things

we can do to make sure that our economy is growing.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 18, the bill dealing with an amendment

to the Corporations Act . The minister

and the Member for Cape St. Francis have done a great job in explaining what the

bill is about. I don't think I have to go through all of that again. Just to say

that it's extremely important what we are doing here today, important so that

people who are coming to our country and who want to remain in our country,

people who are coming here to our province and who want to remain here in our

province are given every assistance they can have to make sure that happens and

to make sure that they can make choices to remain here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I have a

particular interest in it because coming from an immigrant family I understand

the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the growth of our economy here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. When you go back to the early 20th century you had a

couple of key groups who immigrated to Newfoundland and Labrador, people from

China. There are many Chinese who came here. People from Lebanon, as my family

did, Lebanon, Syria and the area. We also had European-Jewish people who came

here as well.

For

anybody who is old enough to remember, the early 20th century, whether one lived

it or knows the history of it, the role of these immigrants, entrepreneurs and

business people was key. They had businesses all over the province, not just in

St. John's, but as new places grew up in the province they went there and set up

businesses, immigration entrepreneurs.

When

Corner Brook started getting off the ground in the 1920s, they went there. They

went to Badger, they went to Carbonear, they went to Botwood. They went all over

this province of ours, which was a country at that time prior to '49, setting up

their businesses. For the most part, that's what they did.

In the

Lebanese community that I grew up in, in St. John's, I don't think one of the

families did not have a business. I think they were all business people. So the

importance of immigrants to our province is historical, very, very historical.

What we're dealing with today is dealing with a current reality of immigration

in our province and trying to ensure that immigrants who are entrepreneurs and

want to have businesses in our province are encouraged in doing that.

Amending

our Corporations Act so that we

broaden the definition – I think that's the important thing to note, that we are

broadening the definition of what a resident Canadian means in the

Corporations Act because of the 25 per

cent rule that both the minister and the Member for Cape St. Francis have spoken

to that says the board of a corporation, under the

Corporations Act , must have at least 25 per cent resident Canadians

on the board.

The

broadening of the definition of resident Canadian is the most important piece of

this bill. So resident Canadian now does include the “Canadian citizen

ordinarily resident in Canada, (ii) a Canadian citizen not ordinarily resident

in Canada who is a member of a prescribed class of persons, (iii) a permanent

resident within the meaning of the

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ( C anada)

and ordinarily resident in Canada, except a permanent resident who has been

ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one year after the time at which he

or she first became eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship.”

Now,

very important, a resident Canadian also means “an international entrepreneur,

or an international graduate entrepreneur.”

The bill

has had to interpret as well what those two categories mean. An international

entrepreneur, the bill says: is a member of the international entrepreneur

category established in accordance with the immigration agreement. That's the

immigration agreement between Canada-Newfoundland and entering into the

member of the international category established within that integration

agreement – the immigration agreement we have with Canada – and is ordinarily a

resident of Canada.

International graduate entrepreneur means an individual who is a member of the

international graduate entrepreneur category established in accordance with that

same agreement and who is ordinarily resident in Canada.

broadening the definition under the

Corporations Act of who a resident Canadian is, immigrants who are setting

up a corporate body – a business has to have been incorporated and had to have a

board of directors – will now have an easier time of finding people to be

members of their board with this broadening of the definition. Because a lot of

the people they have, a lot of their contacts are going to be people like

themselves, people who are international entrepreneurs or people who are

international graduate entrepreneurs. So it broadens the base for them and helps

them in forming corporations and forming businesses that are incorporated.

By doing

that, we are moving into an area which is extremely important because there are

going to be measures, checks and balances prescribed in policy to ensure

legitimacy. In some other jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada – for example, in PEI

and Nova Scotia – they have had problems with fraud and flight risks, and we do

know that happens. It happens outside of Atlantic Canada as well.

So it's

important to make sure that while on the one hand we are really trying to make

things easier for immigrants and entrepreneurs, immigrant entrepreneurs who want

to set up business here, that they are doing it, number one, because they really

are interested in the future of the province themselves, not just in their own

businesses but they want to help the economy; and, number two, that the business

they're setting up is a bona fide business and is going to be operating in the

way that we would expect a business to operate under our

Corporations Act .

Some of

the checks and balances are really important. Some will include having to own

the business for at least a year before it's incorporated, agreeing to an

independent third party screening of the candidate to ensure legitimacy, and

regular monitoring and reviews to ensure net assets are legitimate.

This is

not because we think people are deliberately going to be not legitimate or

they're going to become people who commit fraud, but the reality is that has

happened and that can happen. So ensuring who the persons are or who the person

is, ensuring that they are legitimately doing their business, ensuring that

what's going on is not as happened, for example, in PEI – an investor program

that eventually had to be investigated by the RCMP and the Canada Border

Services Agency because it really was something that was not there for the

economy of PEI, but was just there to help some people get money through

investments.

These

measures are very important. The agreement that the person applying under the

Corporations Act to form a corporation

has to agree to reside permanently in the province and they also have to be

day-to-day manager, so they're not saying I'm living somewhere else or the

manager is living somewhere else. No, the company has to be a real company in

our province with no absentee management going on. The proponent also has to

agree to ongoing monitoring of the business by outside agencies identified, of

course, under our legislation.

These

amendments and the policies that will accompany them mirror similar agreements

in other provinces. I think Nova Scotia, for example, has measures like this to

ensure that the program works well. It's possible that the minister talked about

when the policies and regulations will be in place – I'm not sure, but if he

didn't, I'm sure he'll tell us what the hope is about the timing of getting

these policies in place. I would imagine as soon as the bill is promulgated, as

soon as that happens, we would need the regulations. So I assume they have to be

finished, if they aren't already finished.

The

bill, as I've said, adds the

definitions that are necessary and these amendments

will address the challenge of getting directors, as I pointed out, because this

has been the challenge for people who want to incorporate their businesses under

the old rule which was 25 per cent Canadian participation to be on the board.

Now, the 25 per cent remains but the definition of resident Canadian broadens.

That broadening is what brings in what is needed by the immigrant international

entrepreneurs as they set up businesses in our province.

I'm

happy to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. If I don't hear an answer from the

minister at this point, it will probably happen in Committee when I will have a

question about timing.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill. I won't take my full time,

but I just wanted to add a few words in support of this bill. One of the things

that I did before I entered politics was I taught at the university. I taught

some courses in the faculty of business and I taught some courses in

organizational theory, organizational behaviour, strategic planning and change

management in the MBA program.

What

really struck me there was, particularly in the change management course in the

MBA program that I taught, was that about half the students in my class were

international students from other countries, and what really struck me was that

the number of these students who were interested in starting their own

companies. They were very entrepreneurial, they wanted to get things going and

they were looking for opportunities in Newfoundland in terms of resources and

things that they could maybe sell to their home country or another country.

Another

thing that struck me was how international these students were. Like, you might

have a student from China who had finished part of his or her education in

China, moved to Europe, spent a couple of years in Europe, and then came here to

this province. So the world was really the place where – they talked very

globally about what they were doing and what types of businesses they wanted to

start. So that sort of presence here in our province, their presence here in

this province was an opportunity, I think, that we really have to look to for

development in the future.

So I

think it's very interesting that we're changing this bill to facilitate that

sort of participation further in our economy here, and it's something that I

really support.

Also,

recently the Association for New Canadians in this province – a place that I

had a lot of success and really grown since I worked there as a volunteer years

ago.

They

recently opened an office out in Corner Brook. One of the things that they're

telling me is that a lot of the new arrivals to Canada want to go out, they want

to see businesses and economic opportunities that are available in the area, and

some people are looking at opportunities in agriculture and things like that.

They come to this country with skills in terms of cheese making and things like

that, that we maybe don't traditionally have here in Newfoundland. So it was

interesting to hear from the office out in Corner Brook that there were some

people who were interested in agriculture, interested in secondary processing

related to agriculture.

There's

a lot happening with people who come to this province. I think this piece of

legislation is very timely in that it sort of facilitates that involvement in

our economy. So I just wanted to say a few words in support of this motion.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank my colleagues from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Cape St. Francis, St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi and St. George's - Humber for contributing to this

debate this morning.

MR. LANE:

Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of order, please, the

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, is the minister

going to be closing debate?

MR. SPEAKER:

I didn't introduce her that

way, no.

MR. LANE:

You didn't? Okay, fine, I

thought she brought –

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

I didn't introduce you that

way.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Okay. Sorry. Go head.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

Okay,

let's recommence. You had wanted to speak.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, please proceed with your comments and

then we'll ask the minister to close debate.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister

of Service NL wants to speak to it as well, she can go ahead. My only concern

was I thought she was going to close debate and I wanted to speak. If the

Minister of AES is going to close debate and the Minister of Service NL still

wants to speak, then she can go ahead first. It doesn't matter to me.

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed.

MR. LANE:

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

apologize for the confusion. I'm not going to speak very long to this, but I did

want to have a couple of words on Bill 18,

An Act to Amend the Corporations Act.

I think it's a good bill. I will be supporting the bill. I'm not going to get

into all the details of the bill. That's now been gone over numerous times by my

colleagues. I think they did a good job on diving down into all the details.

I would

just say, though, that one of the issues that we're facing here in Newfoundland

and Labrador is our population. We have an aging population. Generally, we've

had a shrinking population. We have just over half a million people. It would

certainly be, I think, a lot easier for us here in this province to be able to

have more sustainable government programs, to have more money for our existing

highways and roadways, our hospitals, schools if we had more people. Part of the

challenge we have is the size of our population. By growing the population we

create economies of scale, we make services a lot more affordable to deliver, we

have more people working and we have more people paying taxes.

We know

we're just simply not having enough children to keep up with people who are

passing away here in our province. That's a reality. There have been things

tried over the years. We know the former administration at one point introduced

this baby bonus – I don't know if it was called a baby bonus but I think it was

$1,000 to have a baby or whatever it was, former Premier Williams at the time.

Ultimately, we still have that challenge.

If we

want to grow our population, we have to look at other ways of doing it.

Obviously, immigration is a way we can do that, that we can expand our

population. If we want people to come here we have, I think, made some efforts

in bringing more people to the province which is a good thing. It's one thing to

bring them here and it's another thing to keep them here. That's a challenge.

What we've seen is a lot of people have come to this province and become a

Canadian citizen or whatnot, and after a couple of years then they all leave and

they go to Toronto or Montreal or one of the bigger centres, whatever. We see

that all the time.

We need

to encourage people when they come here to Newfoundland and Labrador to stay

here, to make it their home, to have children, for their children to have

children so that we can grow our population and we can grow our economy.

Ultimately, that's what we need to happen. Anything that we can do to foster

that type of growth and development, while at the same time diversifying our

culture, bringing new ideas and new opportunities, we need to do it.

This

bill is just one step in many steps which need to be taken to help make that a

reality. With that in mind, I will be supporting this bill. It's a good piece of

legislation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to rise and have a few comments related to this particular bill. The

amendments to the Corporations Act ,

looking at the Corporations Act

and the means for investment coming into the

province and looking at the current incorporation rules related to the 25

per cent residency requirement. Having investment allowing to be attached to

someone here that has that residence requirement, and from a director's point of

view, have that connection to meet the requirements that currently exist.

From the

information on the bill, other jurisdictions were looked at the residency

requirement and the 25 per cent. Particularly, the residency requirement in some

jurisdictions do not have to appoint a resident Canadian director if they

incorporated in those provinces. Now my understanding from this bill, the

decision was not to go that route but to look at the current Newfoundland and

Labrador, the PNP, which is a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration

Agreement, to look at that as a means to try to assist in adding additional

categories to allow this to happen.

Currently, the Provincial Nominee Program offers three categories, which were

mentioned: Express Entry Skilled Worker, Skilled Worker and International

Graduate. My understanding, this amendment will look at adding two new applicant

categories of International Entrepreneur and International Graduate

Entrepreneur. So it's two new applicant categories that would go through the

PNP.

It will

be interesting when we get into Committee to ask questions about is there

preference given to these two categories in regard to the other three that

currently exist, and what the amount of activity and time frame is for someone

to go through the PNP now. It seems this is the avenue that's being explored, in

allowing under the Corporations Act ,

for external investment to meet the requirement of having a residency status of

a director would be adding these two categories.

Now you

have five categories. So the question becomes: How long does it take to get

through the PNP if someone wants to make that investment and be incorporated

under the Corporations Act here in the

province? Time frames? Is there preference given to these two categories, or are

they in with the other three and now become five categories, which you go under

the Newfoundland PNP? It will be interesting to see what the response is in that

residency requirement.

The

other issue is the information itself. My understanding is the bill is an

agreement in principle to introduce these categories to update the Provincial

Nominee Program. My understanding, as I said earlier, is that immigration is

obviously within the national jurisdiction and there are often, provincially,

agreements, which the PNP is. The requirements of any change here with the two

new categories would make sure they're in line with Immigration Canada,

immigration laws and are respected on a national basis and then flow to

provincial jurisdiction.

Interestingly enough, this actual amendment which is suggesting updates to the

categories under the Provincial Nominee Program – Service Newfoundland is not

providing an exact date to when these amendments to the

Corporations Act will come into

force. The question would be as we go through: Is that because the work to be

done with the PNP agreement, which is a joint agreement between Newfoundland and

Labrador and Canada under immigration – are there amendments that need to take

place with the agreement?

What exactly is the issue it can't move forward in

immigration or things not worked out with the federal government in regard to

changes to the PNP? Maybe it's in regard to the two categories or other issues.

It will be interesting in Committee to get information on that and why we're

going through the process here now, but there's no clear indication of an exact

date to when the amendments to the

Corporations Act will come into effect.

Those are the two that we look forward to having further

discussion on in regard to the two categories being added. How does that

expedite or deal with the issue of the residency requirement and that 25 per

cent, which now still stays, and making sure that's met in regard to investors

or a company that comes into this jurisdiction or wants to incorporate? How does

that facilitate it? What's the time frame for the PNP to go through that, these

two new categories? We have three already, so there are five in total.

Are there issues outstanding with Immigration Canada and

the federal component of this agreement that needs to be worked out,

definitions

changed or issues resolved before – if we approve this amendment, whether it can

proceed forward? My understanding is there's no clear date given for the exact

date to have these amendments in the

Corporations Act moved and come into force.

Those are a couple of things I wanted to point out, Mr.

Speaker. I certainly look forward to having detailed discussions in Committee on

those particular and other items as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If

the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now he

will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

certainly like to thank all of my colleagues from Cape St. Francis, St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl - Southlands and Ferryland

for their contribution to the discussion on this amendment today.

Rather

than risk trying to capture some of the comments that were made by my

colleagues, rather than talk about them now, I'll leave it until the questions

come up in Committee because I may miss something. I'm sure that if I do,

they'll in fact bring that up. So I'm looking forward to answering those

questions.

Mr.

Speaker, it's certainly been a pleasure to discuss this matter in the House and

as Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour I am very excited that we

can see this new program come to fruition. I also want to make reference and say

a big thank you to the Minister of Service NL who has been very, very

supportive, and her staff, as we worked through this amendment to make sure that

we're capturing and providing all of the opportunities that we can, trying to

make things easier for entrepreneurs that are looking at investing and coming to

Newfoundland and Labrador to live, as well as our graduates.

As I

said before in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, we have a significant number of

graduates at our post-secondary institutions that have an interest in coming to

Newfoundland and Labrador. I might add that we have gotten the assurance from

the Minister of Service NL that she is taking her role in protecting the public

very seriously. We've had a significant amount of discussions around that and I

just want to say a big thank you to the minister and her department for working

with us to make sure these amendments are made.

The

act's director, resident Canadian requirement of at least 25 per cent adds an

important layer of regulatory oversite in the

Corporations Act . It promotes Canadian participation in corporate

decision making; it fosters compliance with an enforcement of legal obligations;

it promotes Canadian participation in the decision making of multinational

enterprises; and helps foreign firms to understand the economic, the political

and the social environment in Canada.

Residency requirements have been adopted in Canada in part to address concerns

about the amount of direct foreign investment in this country. In addition to

promoting Canadian interest and ensuring a local presence on corporate boards,

the director's residency requirements aim to ensure that there would be

directors who reside in Canada who would be accountable to the actions of the

corporation.

The

residency requirements help to promote compliance with the law, particularly

statutes that impose liability on directors for actions of the corporation.

Furthermore, if directors must be a resident in Canada, there is likely to be

local assets from which judgments can be satisfied.

Those

participating in this program will be active investors, living here and

contributing to the local economy. Therefore, changing the act to broadening who

can incorporate under the act is not a step that we take lightly. It is done

only after careful consideration and with the development of thorough and robust

monitoring and compliance mechanisms that will be in place within our

departments.

These

measures and these amendments will strike a proper balance between mitigating

the risk and giving the tools that participants in new business immigration

categories need to flourish in our province.

Mr.

Speaker, all of us have a role to play in increasing immigration to Newfoundland

and Labrador and, today, I am happy to be a part of supporting the program by

putting this bill before the House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 18 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Noting

the time, I moved, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that we recess

until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

this House stand recessed until 2 p.m.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

It being

Wednesday, in accordance with Standing Order 9(1)(b), this House is in recess

until 2 o'clock.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome everyone back after our recess.

We do

have some visitors today. I'd like to recognize, first of all, in the Speaker's

gallery, Ms. Mary Sexton. She will be the subject of a Member's statement this

afternoon, and she is accompanied by Sarah Sexton and Gary Sexton.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As we like to say in the

House of Assembly, we're very big on alumni. I'm very pleased to welcome back

our former Page, Fatimah Rathore, she's visiting us. It's great to have her

back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Having gone through a

filibuster or two, she's had her share of time in this room.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' Statements

today, I will be welcoming the Members for the Districts of Conception Bay

South, St. George's – Humber, Windsor Lake, Baie Verte - Green Bay and St.

John's Centre.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to information my hon. colleagues about an exceptional individual from my

district who was named Volunteer of the Year 2018 at the Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador's 11th annual Stars and Legends Gala.

Mr.

David Coates from Conception Bay South has been a long-time volunteer for

baseball in our community. As an administrator of CBS Minor Baseball, David was

responsible for the supervision of summer staff, administering the summer

program, and serving as a liaison between the local association and town

officials on facility upgrades, improvements and issues.

As a

coach, David served a number of teams, including the CBS Storm in the St. John's

Amateur Baseball Association, the CBS Raiders in the Junior A provincials, and

the Baseball NL 15U team that competed at the 15U National Championships.

David

was also the host committee chair for Baseball NL in the 13U AA Championships

that were by hosted by the province in CBS. David and his host committee put off

a very successful event that players, coaches and parents were complimentary of

his hard work, passion and dedication to ensuring a successful event for

everyone involved.

congratulate David for his commitment and achievements, and ask all hon. Members

to join with me in recognizing his contribution to our community and the

province.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to let everyone know that the 2018 Codroy Valley Folk Festival will happen

July 27, 28 and 29 of this year.

The

Codroy Valley Folk Festival takes place in Upper Ferry (that's Route 406 off the

Trans-Canada Highway) at the recreation centre behind Belanger High School. The

festival was first introduced in 1982, and will celebrate its 36th year in July.

Throughout its history, the festival has played host to the best local talent

the Codroy Valley has to offer, and provides a venue each year for both

residents and tourists to come together and celebrate the unique culture and

heritage of the area.

The

Codroy Valley is one of the few areas of the province with a prominent Scottish

heritage. The music of the festival includes a distinct Scottish flavour with

bagpipes, Scottish dancing and fiddle playing, as well as other traditional and

contemporary music. The festival will be going ahead rain or shine under a big

tent.

encourage everyone to come this year and enjoy what the festival has to offer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Mr. Thaddeus Dreher, a resident of the

District of Windsor Lake.

advocate for diversity and multiculturalism, Mr. Dreher led the Provincial

Multiculturalism Association for more than 25 years. He is a decorated Polish

war veteran who fought Nazis in the Second World War and was recently awarded

the Polish Pro Patria medal for his service and volunteer efforts. A loving

husband and father, Mr. Dreher has lived a life of service to his countries and

his community.

As his

birthplace, Poland, celebrates 100 years of regaining independence, Thaddeus

Dreher also celebrates his 100th birthday in August of this year.

Mr.

Dreher is quoted as saying: “World War 2 was a warning to everybody that we have

to change, that we have to be different. Multiculturalism is more important than

ever.”

This

veteran and proud Newfoundland and Labrador citizen has personally been the

catalyst for what the world aspires to be – democratic, inclusive and

compassionate.

May the

leadership and legacy of Mr. Dreher be reflected in the actions we take to live

up to his expectations of a diverse world where we have learned from our past.

Please

join me in wishing Mr. Thaddeus Dreher a very happy 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

congratulate Constable Paula Strowbridge, who was recently honoured as

Newfoundland and Labrador's 2018 RCMP Police Officer of the Year.

Paula

was born and raised in Springdale, the same community that she finds herself

patrolling today; a model student, a fantastic athlete, an accomplished musician

and daughter of very proud parents. After completing her music degree at

Memorial, it was off to the RCMP Training Depot in 2004.

After

graduation, Paula spent three-and-a-half years in Nanaimo, BC before

transferring back to Newfoundland and Labrador. After stints in both Placentia

and Whitbourne, she decided to take leave from the force to raise her family. In

2016, she returned to active duty in her hometown and we are very fortunate, Mr.

Speaker, to have her.

Today,

Paula is a devoted member of her church, teaches piano lessons and is involved

in the community recreation programs with her daughters. Any opportunity to

volunteer, Paula will be the first in line. Driven by a sincere motivation to

help others, she takes great pride in protecting those who cannot protect

themselves.

I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating

Constable Paula Strowbridge, VOCM Crime Stoppers, RCMP Police Officer of the

Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Twelve years ago, film producer Mary Sexton began her

odyssey to bring Maudie to the big

screen – and she did it. Not only did she get the story of artist Maude Lewis on

screens around the world, Maudie won

20 international awards. Among them: Best Motion Picture at the Canadian Screen

Awards, and three awards at the Irish Film & Television Academy awards.

The role of a producer is to have a vision, gather the best

team possible to realize that vision and make sure that everyone has what they

need to do their best to bring the story to life. The producer takes the risk

and is the guiding force and the glue that holds everything and everyone

together. It takes determination, skill, passion and, above all, courage – and

what an incredible film Mary and her team created.

Mary Sexton is proof that despite all obstacles, beautiful,

powerful films can be made.

Thank you, Mary, for the incredible gift of

Maudie to the world. Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In March, students from this province competed in the

Enactus Canada Regional Exhibition that was held in Halifax. Among them were

students from the College of the North Atlantic's Grand Falls-Windsor campus.

The Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor team included many

first-year students who had never competed in an exhibition before and they did

exceptionally well. The team won the Scotiabank EcoLiving Green Challenge. They

placed second behind Memorial University in the TD Entrepreneurship Challenge,

and also took second in the Capital One Financial Education Challenge.

Winning the Scotiabank EcoLiving Green Challenge also

qualified this outstanding group of students to compete in the Enactus National

Exhibition held in Toronto May 14-16, where they received the Spirit Award in

their respective league

competition.

I am

very proud to say that the President of Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor was also

named HSBC Woman Leader of Tomorrow. Crystal Ford is a second-year business

management student at the College of the North Atlantic, and this honour

provides significant rewards for her and the team. For the next 12 months,

Crystal will be paired with a woman leader to help develop her leadership

skills. She has earned a prize of $1,000 for herself and $2,500 for Enactus

Grand Falls-Windsor.

As I

know many of my hon. colleagues would agree, celebrating the accomplishments and

exciting potential of our province's students is one of the great rewards of our

work. Education is the passport to a brighter future for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

During

May and June, graduation ceremonies will be held at the College of the North

Atlantic campuses throughout the province. These graduates are well educated,

highly skilled and prepared to capitalize on the numerous opportunities that

exist in our province today and in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the students

and graduates of College of the North Atlantic.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Each time we, as Members of

this House, have the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of students in the

province, it is indeed a great experience. We would like to acknowledge the

Enactus teams from all across this province that have taken

part in these

important competitions and salute the winners. We offer our best to Ms. Crystal

Ford on being named the HSBC Woman Leader of Tomorrow.

behalf of the Official Opposition, we would like to formally congratulate all

graduates of the College of the North Atlantic and commend them for a job well

done. We wish them all the very best in the years to come.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to

this year's graduates of the College of the North Atlantic and congratulations

also to the Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor team and their outstanding performance

in regional and national Enactus exhibitions, and as well to Crystal Ford on her

recognition.

I point

out to the minister, though, that while he claims to celebrate our students, who

deserve acclaim, his government also made a net $1.5 million budget cut to the

college this year. This before the college's review and modernization plan is

finished and before the post-secondary review has even started.

Not a

good strategy for investing in our youth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I am very

pleased to acknowledge the recent success of two important events, one here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and the other in the nation's capital, both

commemorating National Seal Products Day on May 22.

National

Seal Products Day acknowledges the cultural significance of the sealing industry

and its ties to the economic well-being of sealers and seal product producers.

The Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador have worked tirelessly to plan

these events, which highlighted seal product displays and, in Ottawa, a feast

was prepared by well-known chefs from this province, Todd Perrin of Mallard

Cottage and Lori McCarthy of Cod Sounds.

Mr.

Speaker, our sealing industry is active and growing. In 2017, landings increased

by 22 per cent to approximately 81,000 with a value of approximately $2 million

and employment of over 50 processing jobs alone.

Our

government supports the seal product market development through a variety of

funding and grant programs. Since 2007, Mr. Speaker, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador have invested $630,000 in various projects aimed at

improving the sustainability of the seal industry. We were a major sponsor of

National Seal Products Day this year.

Mr.

Speaker, the people of our province have a strong regard for our sealing

industry, and National Seal Products Day is our country's chance to proudly

share that regard with the entire world. I congratulate everyone involved in

making National Seal Products Day a resounding success, and look forward to

keeping that momentum going with our continued support for this proud and vital

industry.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

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

attend the event held in the lobby at Confederation Building last Thursday. I

was happy to see that it was so well attended and the display by the craft

producers was very impressive.

Mr.

Speaker, sealing has strived in Newfoundland and Labrador for hundreds of years

and is of deep historic significance to our province. Seal harvests continues to

have an economic importance to our province, particularly in rural and coastal

communities. The industry continues to produce high-quality products that are in

high demand.

Throughout our term, our government promoted and invested in the seal industry

to help ensure income for sealers and processing workers, and also support the

long-term viability of our fish stocks. I would encourage the provincial

government to do so today.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the copy of his statement. I congratulate everyone involved in

the recent success of National Seal Products Day, both here and in Ottawa. The

industry has grown in the past few years and this is really good to see,

especially for somebody who likes seal flippers.

It is

one of the oldest industries in this province and has had its share of troubles,

but has been resilient. Government has had a role to play in the industry

upswing. We encourage government to do even more to improve the industry, expand

the markets and promote the benefits of seal products worldwide.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through

an access to information request, we uncovered some troubling information

related to a matter in Central Health.

I ask

the Minister of Health: Did you – and I quote – willingly and purposely change

the composition of the board of trustees in order to change the outcome of an

appeal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The short answ