PDF Version

November 22, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 46

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order please!

Admit strangers.

I would like to welcome to the people's House today

several special guests. First of all in the Speaker's gallery, I would like to

welcome Lester Green, Elaine Spurrell and Wanda Garrett from the Southwest Arm

Historical Society who will be recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon

for a very special award they have received. Joining them are also Helen Green

and John Spurrell.

A great welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

must also say I enjoyed a great discussion this morning with the Deputy Mayor of

the City of Mount Pearl, Mr. Jim Locke, who's here with his Mount Pearl Senior

High School consumer studies class joining us in the public gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

With that, I will recognize the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of personal privilege. Mr.

Speaker, I know that from time to time in debate in the House, particularly the

Opposition, there's information sometimes that's put forward that's totally

incorrect, and many times we just sit back and take it.

I just want to take exception to the Member for Cape

St. Francis yesterday who made a statement and he quoted as saying it's fact.

The statement that he made was in reference to the number of businesses in

Newfoundland and Labrador that have gone bankrupt and he made his statement as a

fact that there are more bankruptcies in this province under our administration

than ever before in the history of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, if it's

permissible, that in 2017 – I went back to 2000 – there were 23 businesses

bankrupt in this province. In 2007, there were 52. Also, consumer bankruptcies

2017: 1,367; in 2009: 2,542. That is correct information. So I take exception to

that and I would, if it's permissible, like to table this so that the hon.

Members opposite can really take a look at the facts and not just make

statements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

thank the hon. minister.

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Today we will hear Members' statements from the hon.

Members for the Districts of Exploits, Torngat Mountains, Stephenville - Port au

Port, Ferryland and Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Mr.

Speaker, if I could.

(Inaudible) did he have a point of order or a point of

privilege?

MR.

SPEAKER:

was a point of privilege, a point of personal privilege, so it's just a

clarification read into the record.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR.

DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the

Jubilee Pentecostal Temple on their November 16 through to 18 celebration of 90

years of bringing the gospel to the people of Botwood and neighbouring

communities.

I had the pleasure of joining with the congregation and

area residents on the marking of this memorable milestone, and the privilege of

bringing greetings at their celebration concert on November 16, while sharing in

fellowship and worship.

The Jubilee Pentecostal Temple and their teachings has

long been a pillar of community support throughout our province. They have been

exemplary in providing earthly and spiritual comfort to the communities that

they serve.

Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, Jubilee Pentecostal

Temple has been host to the hearing by me of many memorable sermons, and is the

church where Beverley and I were married.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in

wishing for Jubilee Pentecostal Temple congratulations on their 90th anniversary

and Godspeed on your continued march to a centenarian celebration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR.

EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate the girls'

volleyball team from Natuashish. This past weekend, I had the pleasure of

attending the regional volleyball tournament in the 1A and 2A divisions in

Northwest River.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Labrador sports meets started

in 1978 and, this year, the girls from Natuashish made history as they captured

the gold in the fall sports meet, and again this past weekend as they also

captured the regional championship, defeating teams from Northwest River and

Churchill Falls. With the wins, they earned the right to represent Labrador in

the provincial 2A championships.

It didn't come easy, Mr. Speaker. One of our Natuashish

Shaman players, a strong competitor, Hopie Piwas, suffered a serious ankle

injury and had to leave the competition. Even with this disadvantage, the rest

of the team dominated the tournament.

Mr. Speaker, the measure of a community is by the fire

in their young athletes, and Natuashish, as well as the rest of the province,

have every right to be proud of the team's accomplishments.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the

team for its efforts, and making history in their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an

incredible group of businesswomen from the Port au Port Peninsula. In 2012, the

Lourdes Co-op Society was at risk of being shut down after being in business for

over 70 years. Six years later, the business has turned completely around, so

much so that last month the business received the 2018 Long Range CBDC Business

Award of Distinction.

The award was accepted by manager Sharleen Hinks and

two members of the business's board of directors, Bertha Hynes and Eileen

Gastia, at the awards gala last month.

What started out as a business suited to meet the needs

of local fishermen has expanded to meet the needs of the entire community. The

great success of the business can be attributed to the all-women team that

currently operate the business. They've seen tremendous growth. Their hard work

and dedication to the company has seen an average of 15 to 20 new members every

month, with a rise in their membership from 464 in 2014 to 706 members, an

increase of over 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating these women on their award and wish them all the best as they

continue to grow the business in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize St. Kevin's High

School graduating class of 2018. On Wednesday, November 7, I was honoured to

participate in the cap and gown and awards ceremony for 74 students at St.

Kevin's.

St. Kevin's High School has always achieved at a high

level in academics, athletics and the arts. This class of 2018 is certainly no

different. The commitment from the school administration has ensured students

are ready to take on any challenge as they move forward on a new path.

St. Kevin's valedictorian was Mr. Luke Porter who

addressed the gathering and spoke of the impact St. Kevin's has had on class

development and the memories and friendships that has been developed during

their time in their school years. These relationships will serve them well in

their future endeavours.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues of this

House to join me in congratulating the graduating class of 2018 of St. Kevin's

High School and wish them every success in their future endeavours.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR.

HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to celebrate the efforts of the Southwest

Arm Historical Society. Established in 2013, the Historical Society has focused

its work on researching, preserving and promoting the history of the 24

communities, both current and resettled, in the greater Southwest Arm area.

The society's website, launched in December 2014, has

1,425 pages with more than 5,000 images depicting the history of these

communities and its people.

In 2016, Where Once They Served project honoured the 26

men who served in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment during World War I. In 2017,

these commemorative banners were on exhibition at The Rooms.

Part two, Where Once They Sailed, was completed earlier

this month with the Society honouring the 87 men who sailed in the Royal Naval

Reserve; 12 made the supreme sacrifice.

In January, members of the Historical Society will be

recognized in Ottawa during the Governor General's History Awards of Excellence

in Community Programming ceremony.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in applauding the

efforts of the Southwest Arm Historical Society. Thank you Lester Green, Elaine

Spurrell and Wanda Garrett for your dedication to the families of the men who

served king and country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to provide this hon. House with an update

on the ongoing review of our province's municipal legislation.

I'm pleased to say that we have concluded the second

phase of consultations to modernize the

Municipalities Act, 1999 , the City of

St. John's Act , the City of Mount

Pearl Act and the City of Corner Brook

Act .

The feedback received during the extensive

consultations process has been compiled and can be found online at EngageNL.ca.

Through public engagement efforts, well over 2,000 suggestions for improvements

have been captured.

At the Premier's Forum on Local Government in October,

the Premier was joined by delegates representing municipalities across the

province, as well as a number of Members from this hon. House to discuss

municipal legislation and contribute to the review.

Mr. Speaker, to date we have heard requests for: code

of conduct legislation for elected officials and staff; improved conflict of

interest provisions; training for officials and administrators; as well as more

clarity on the role of local governments.

The department is currently analyzing the feedback from

the review and developing recommendations for modernization of the legislation.

I would like to thank every resident, municipal leader

and administrator, stakeholder organization and community representative who

took the time to participate in this important consultation process. In

particular, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the Professional

Municipal Administrators have put significant efforts into working with the

department on the review.

Mr. Speaker, the review of municipal legislation will

result in a stronger, more flexible legislative framework that will meet the

needs of today's cities and local governments and positively impact the daily

lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. Mr. Speaker, municipal legislation review was announced some time

ago, and I'm pleased to receive this update.

As a former mayor, I'm very familiar with issues

concerning local governance and I certainly recognize the importance of this

review. I look forward to seeing the recommendations put forward following the

consolation process and I also look forward to debating them here in the House –

the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity

to thank mayors, councillors and staff across this province. The work they do is

very valuable and I know they're looking forward to this new, modernized

legislation.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. I'm

glad to hear of the work being done to modernize the

Municipalities Act and various cities acts, it's long overdue; also

good to hear government is listening to all parties, especially the

municipalities themselves, as they did when we were all in Gander with the

municipalities.

The minister may be new to his portfolio but he is not

new to municipal politics, and has been involved in municipal politics long

enough to know none of the new changes will work unless municipalities are given

the proper resources, financial and otherwise, to implement them. So I encourage

the minister along that road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize National Housing Day. Across the country each year, November 22 is

devoted to raising awareness about housing and homelessness and finding

solutions to address Canada's housing needs.

The National Housing Strategy, announced on this day,

one year ago, in 2017, is a 10-year, $40 billion plan that includes $20.5

billion in federal funds to be allocated to provinces and territories to help

reduce homelessness and to improve the availability and quality of housing for

Canadians in need.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2018, Newfoundland and Labrador

also endorsed a multi-lateral Housing Partnership Framework with the federal

government. This partnership addresses the housing needs of Canadians,

particularly those of vulnerable populations.

Through this federal, provincial, territorial

partnership we can achieve better housing outcomes by sharing data and

information that will make program development and delivery more effective. By

collaborating with diverse stakeholders we can create effective housing

solutions.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to achieving

the best outcomes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and in keeping with that

commitment, we will continue working with the federal government to negotiate

and finalize a bilateral agreement, which I am confident will represent an

historic level of housing investment in our province.

Mr. Speaker, the details of this agreement are key to

the development of the Provincial Housing and Homelessness Plan, which we will

release in 2019.

Our focus is to reach an agreement with the federal

government that addresses Newfoundland and Labrador's specific housing needs and

defines how the National Housing Strategy and our Provincial Housing and

Homelessness Plan support and align provincial priorities with shared national

housing outcomes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. We too want to recognize National Housing Day across the country and

note the awareness that is required about housing and homelessness and finding

solutions across Canada, as well as here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I applaud the National Housing Strategy that was

initiated in 2017, a 10-year program to look at the improvement and the

availability of quality housing for Canadians, and certainly Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I look forward to hearing more details in regard to the bilateral

agreement that the minister is working on with the federal government. As we

know in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are many needs to be met.

I also know that we need to look broadly at the needs

of those most vulnerable in regard to homelessness and the other services and

programs that are available to them so we can work collectively to improve the

lives of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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. It's

good that NLHC has expanded its social mandate and is playing a key role in

addressing homelessness. It's important that we all recognize that housing is an

important social determinant of health. Our provincial housing action plan has

been delayed for two years now and the bilateral housing agreement seems to be

taking a long time to finalize with much of the federal money a long way into

the future.

I say to the minister, people need better housing now

and I hope that what comes forth from her in 2019 is a plan that has both action

and money attached to it so housing can be dealt with.

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.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, BeeHigh Vital Elements Inc. is the first and only Health Canada

licenced producer of cannabis in the province. This company acquired their

licence before Canopy Growth or Biome Grow.

So I ask the minister: Will BeeHigh Vital Elements also

be receiving a multi-million dollar taxpayer subsidy?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're quite proud to see that BeeHigh Vital Elements

has received a production licence from Health Canada, the first in the province,

and they'll be operating out of Corner Brook. They will be a much smaller scale

operation focused on craft in particular, but they also have to acquire a sales

licence. Once they achieve a sales licence, then they will be able to do sales

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So they would have to have

dialogue then with the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

We are certainly open for business. We are engaged, and

we have been in discussion with BeeHigh Vital Elements as we welcome the same

conversations with any other producer of cannabis in the country that has a

licence.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, the minister routinely argues that government needed to give out

multi-million dollar taxpayer subsidies in order to create a cannabis industry

in this province; yet, BeeHigh received their Health Canada licence without any

government handout.

So I ask the minister: Why have you chosen to shovel

money into Canopy Growth and the secret shareholder company while BeeHigh can

succeed on its own?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

So,

Mr. Speaker, if we take the approach of the Leader of the Official Opposition,

given the fact that cannabis became legal in October, if we had not entered into

a supply agreement we would not have the 23 retailers that are selling, and have

sold, millions of dollars of cannabis here in this province.

We have entered into an arrangement to secure supply.

BeeHigh Vital Elements do not have a sales licence. They have a production

licence right now but they do not have the ability to do sales. When it comes to

Canopy or Biome, they both have production and sales licences that allow them to

ship product and sell into our province so that we can grow an industry here,

and that's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

The

minister said on Monday that he received a request from Canopy Growth in writing

in May for the

schedule to be adjusted.

Can the minister please advise what specific changes

have been made to the agreement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in the House of Assembly, based on the delay

in a start for cannabis happening in July – it was originally scheduled, it

didn't happen until October – that created some delays. When Canopy was looking

at this they were also looking at retrofitting buildings within the city. They

decided on a new build as their option to be able to move forward based on the

availability of properties.

With the City of St. John's, as well, they require

permitting; things took a little longer. There was a fair bit of granite that

was actually available for doing the landscaping and to be able to do the

development. So we have an ability now where we've looked at the timelines and

what has been requested, and Canopy will be in production by October of 2019.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker,

Schedule A of the agreement with Canopy says that the production

facility will be 50 per cent completed by October 1 of this year.

Did they reach this milestone? And, if not, what is the

percentage of completion?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're working very closely with Canopy Growth, as we

are working with Biome and as we will work with any of the other cannabis

production producers that we enter into an agreement with for supply and

distribution that will also be doing production here that will be creating jobs

in our economy and adding value. What we have the ability to do is that, one, we

enter into a contract. If there are obstacles that have been faced, we have the

ability to look at making an amendment to the contract as long as it is

agreeable to the provincial government.

So based on what I outlined earlier in the

conversation, we are in agreement that Canopy would have a production facility

up and running by October of 2019.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, as often happens, I didn't hear an answer to the specific question of

50 per cent completion.

On the subject of amending the agreement: Was the

original agreement amended, and will the minister table the amended agreement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our particular contract of supply, Canopy

has agreed to supply us with 8,000 kilograms on an annual basis. In return,

we've entered into a 20-year agreement with them so that they would build a

production facility here creating 145 jobs and that it would all be on a

performance-based measure so that they would take all the risk and put all the

capital upfront in producing their facility.

In return, what would happen, in order for them to

recoup some of their cost – not all of it, only eligible expenses – they would

get reduced remittances. But for every dollar that will be provided to Canopy

through their sales, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation would get

at least $2, and most cases more. So this is a good deal for the people of this

province, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

They seem like complicated propositions, Mr. Speaker.

So, again, I'd ask the minister if he would table the

amended agreement so we can have a look at it for ourselves.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a great opportunity, I did yesterday in debate

as well, and so did my parliamentary secretary, to clear up the record, time and

time again, that's been put forward by the Member of the Opposition and the

Leader of the Third Party, because government is not putting any upfront money

into this. There are no taxpayer dollars.

We hear them talk often about $40 million or $95

million. There is no budgetary line in any of our budgets that we're providing

any type of grant;

whereas it hasn't always been the case for some of the deals

that have been done on the other side. There's been significant risk of taxpayer

money put forward into making a deal.

What we've done is, when we enter into agreements, and

we've done so in due diligence with our staff that are doing those, and anything

that we can make available we have certainly done so.

We're not hiding anything, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as a no, he will not provide or table the amended

agreement.

On Monday, the minister said we have an audit process

put in place and we have adequate protections to ensure that all steps are being

followed.

Who specifically will audit compliance with this

agreement, Department of Finance or outside auditors?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a clear process put in place for audits. Audits

will be put forward on a monthly basis. They would be reconciled with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation and then they would be verified

based on what is an eligible expense.

If there are more remittances that have been paid out

or not remitted to the liquor corporation, given that there would be an

overpayment, then we would be able to recoup that amount if there is not enough

eligible expenses that would be coming forward on a month by month basis. So we

do have that ability to reconcile.

And I did state, adequately, that we do have

protections put in place. There are mechanisms in the contract from a remittance

point of view, but also if there is non-compliance, we have the ability to pull

retail licences and other mechanisms at our disposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, all of that is impressive but I didn't hear an answer to the

specific question of audit and whether it's being done in-house or by

consultants.

Would the minister be able to answer that?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation has been tasked

with being the distributor for supply in Newfoundland and Labrador. They created

Cannabis NL and they are the overseer as the regulator. What they are doing is

they would be shipping out product – through that whole process, they would be

doing the accounting process to determine how much cannabis sales is happening

in our province, how much would be happening from online, how much would be

happening from Canopy stores to the retail stores, and determining what is the

reduced remittances. Then doing an audit based on eligible expenses that are

coming forward, and we'd be able to do that through the NLC and through the

Department of TCII.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, have many questions. How will they ever know if the $40

million in lost tax subsidies was the best deal for the province, especially

when we don't know the identities of the owners of the companies that are

benefiting from the subsidies?

I ask the minister, or the Premier, whoever wishes to

answer: Will he call in the Auditor General to investigate the Canopy Growth

deal and give the taxpayers the answers they deserve?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Mr.

Speaker, we have done a performance-based deal when it comes to attracting a

cannabis producer here in this province. We've done it not only once, because

they're only interested in the Canopy deal, but we've also done it with Biome.

And we will look to do deals, performance-based deals with other cannabis

producers because they are creating jobs and they are returning dollars to our

Treasury.

The option that the Member opposite is talking about is

importation and having jobs elsewhere. That is not what we want here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are encouraging business investment and business

attraction. That is what we are doing.

The legislation, when it comes to Canopy, that's who we

have the contract with. They have shareholders, they are publicly traded. I

don't know what the Member opposite continues to be talking about, a numbered

company that has no relationship with government.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're hearing horror stories related to the pharmacy

technician registration program.

Will the minister admit that the pharmacy technician

registration process has become a mess for those who are trying to avail of it?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Pharmacy is a regulated profession under the

Pharmacy Act , and the authority for

that rests with the pharmacy board. Seven or so years ago they changed the

educational requirements for pharmacy techs. When that happened the Department

of Health, under the previous administration and this one, worked very hard to

support those individuals who wanted to, to maintain the qualifications and

become eligible for registration.

We have continued that process, Mr. Speaker, and, as of

this year, have provided an extra $60,000 in grants or subsidies to individuals

who wish to upgrade their qualifications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And that's not exactly our understanding.

Can the minister explain why currently employed

pharmacy assistants who were promised full financial employment supports to

complete a two-year online pharmacy technician support program have been

abandoned?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think some of the rather emotional terminology in

there belies some of the facts. No one has been abandoned. There have been

concerted efforts by the regional health authorities and the Department of

Health to ensure that anybody who wished to upgrade their qualifications, that a

pharmacy tech was able to do so.

There was a deadline and a bridging program. Of that,

there were 33 individuals who were unsuccessful in bridging. Of those, 13 are

being catered for in the province and 10 are being provided with money to enable

them to take outside qualifications to enable them to bridge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why has the minister not discussed the ability to have

both pharmacy assistants and pharmacy technicians work in the pharmacy field, as

a number of other jurisdictions allow, so that no present employees are

displaced or be forced to face financial or mental hardship?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That's exactly what we are doing. Pharmacy assistants

have lesser qualifications and requirements than pharmacy techs. There is room

for both in the system currently. Anybody who was an assistant under the old

scheme and wanted to upgrade was accommodated. We've spent significant time and

effort, as did the previous government, to be fair in bridging them. And, as I

say, lately $60,000 has been provided to these individuals who wish to continue

to upgrade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're hearing that a number of pharmacy technician

applicants from Newfoundland and Labrador are having to travel to other

provinces to do exams and register as pharmacy technicians in that province and

then apply for certification in this province to practice.

Does the minister think this is the best way to support

those who are committed to apply their skills within our province's health care

system?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much.

As I said, this is an issue brought up by the pharmacy

board itself. They are, under the Pharmacy

Act , responsible for quality and qualifications of people in the profession

of pharmacy whether they be assistants, techs or pharmacists themselves.

There are a group of people who were unsuccessful in

bridging and they have chosen the option to go out of the province, and we are

supporting them financially to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need to clarify to the minister, there is no option.

The only option is they must travel out of the province at their own expense.

The pharmacy board has denied requests for more than 60

per cent of the current pharmacy technician applicants who applied for an

extension to get their certification due to heath issues, family issues, work

issues and other challenges.

Does the minister think this is an appropriate action

when we are trying to recruit for this profession?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Mr.

Speaker, again, I think it's a little unfortunate some of the language the

Member opposite is using. No one has been abandoned. There has been some

challenges with the pharmacy board. They are adamant about the standards they

require for upgrading and they are well within their jurisdiction to do that.

It is not the role of government to regulate a

self-regulating profession, unless what I'm hearing from the Member opposite is

they feel that this government should take a direct hand in the licensing of

self-regulating professions.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

But it is the responsibly of government to ensure the best health care possible,

and ensuring that we have the best trained people, who are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, who have been trained here, get to stay here and provide that

health care for the people of this province.

These technicians were led to believe that once they

completed an additional two years of education, along with the previous pharmacy

technician course that had been completed, while spending their own money and

using their leave time, that they would be compensated financially through

reclassification.

What we have learned is they will receive just over a

dollar an hour increase, while now having to pay the pharmacy board nearly $800

a year in licensing fee. This nets a loss for most in the program.

Does the minister see this as fair?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I can't comment on collective bargaining issues around

negotiations for pay scales. I am aware that the pharmacy board have changed, or

proposing to change, their registration fees for this coming year. We have met

with the Pharmacy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on this subject, and,

indeed, my officials are engaging with the registrar currently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

That's good, because it leads right into my next question.

Will the minister commit to conveying a meeting with

the health authorities, unions and stakeholders to ensure that the right thing

is done to support these health care professionals and prove health care

delivery?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

The department has met regularly with the health

authorities on this issue as it is of concern to them. The maintenance of

hospital pharmaceutical service is paramount. We have also met with PANL to

discuss this issue. And, as I say, we are currently engaged with the pharmacy

board.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, under the

Pharmacy Act that was last revised by

the Members opposite when they were in office, they are a self-regulating

profession. They are responsible to their own counsel and their own board.

Government has never interfered in the regulation of self-regulating

professions; that is their responsibility to manage. We are engaged with them,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want the minister to acknowledge the fact that

we're at a point now where this may become a crisis, and that's why the

government are offering $10,000 bursaries to attract people into the field. So

we need to address this immediately.

Can the minister provide the number of individuals that

are currently waiting for a long-term care bed in the St. John's area?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to just comment that the fact that the Member

alluded to bursaries in his previous

preamble confirms what I have been saying

since this series of questions started, which is government is committed to

support these individuals in their educational endeavours. It is a challenge

exam.

Those people who want and feel the need to have further

education can access funds to do so and we will continue to support them in

their endeavours, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I go to my next question, I need to clarify

again for the minister. He's actually supporting what I've said here in the

sense that the acknowledgement that there is a crisis in this particular field.

The extra $10,000 is to compensate for those that they're forcing out of the

field who, in some cases, for decades have been providing that service within

our pharmacies and within our health care regions, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't

compensate for the fact that people are being displaced who have a skill set

here, and very little support is being done for those who wanted to move to the

next level and get their certification.

I recall there were 28 new beds opened recently in

Carbonear.

Minister, is there a wait-list for long-term beds in

Carbonear? If so, how many individuals are on that list?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Those are very operational details. I don't have access

to those figures at my fingertips. I will undertake to provide them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

We're getting a number of calls from concerned families about loved ones waiting

for long-term beds in St. John's.

How long will these families have to wait for

appropriate beds?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I don't have wait-list data at my fingertips. I can

provide that. The last time I looked, which was earlier this spring, the

wait-list for long-term care beds averaged between two and three months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

That's, again, not what we're hearing from families and we know that from health

professionals who are telling us the same thing.

When your government was elected in 2015, you cancelled

an RFP for 360 long-term care beds which included 120 for each location: St.

John's, Corner Brook and the Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor area.

We know the work is progressing for the new beds in

Corner Brook and Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, but does the minister have a plan

to address the shortage of long-term care beds in St. John's?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy today to speak about the 2015 commitment that we had made to

long-term care in our province.

I will say that Members opposite weren't too concerned

because they spent over 10 years in this very Chamber here ignoring the

long-term care situation in our province. They did a great job on the facility

in St. John's, and we recognize that, but what they didn't do was do a good job

anywhere else in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is why this government stepped

up and put in place a new procurement model that they ignored. We were doing it

using public sector workers which they completely ignored and did not want to be

providing those services in those facilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need to refresh the mind of the Premier that we

invested – the previous administration – in long-term care beds all through the

province, and including Labrador also, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

BRAZIL:

Are

there any plans for beds to accommodate individuals with mild or moderate

dementia in the Northeast Avalon? We are also hearing this is an unaddressed

need.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

One of our undertakings in my mandate letter was to

bring forth a plan for dementia care. That is ongoing. It is part of our home

support and personal care home review. Dementia care, as a specific area, has

been identified. We are currently in discussions with both home support agencies

and personal care homes as part of our review to ensure people with mild to

moderate dementia are adequately cared for, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nearly a month ago, the minister stated that nothing

had changed in how government support seniors and their families in accessing

personal care homes or remaining in their homes. We are being told something

totally different.

Does the minister still stand by that statement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm delighted to stand to clear up some confusion here.

The Member opposite is not speaking to the bulk of

personal care home operators. The bulk of them, all but five essentially, all

but five, are quite comfortable with the process we have. They're engaged in the

process and they accept that we've sent out a discussion document. Five of them,

including a former Minister of Health from that side of the House, have

subverted the process for their own ends.

The gentleman opposite is not listening to the bulk of

people. The last time they tinkered with personal care home allowances, 15 per

cent of small homes in this province closed as a direct result of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell

Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister table the wait-list for long-term

care beds for all regions across the province on a facility basis, including a

breakdown of a number of waiting in acute beds and those that are waiting in the

community?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Mr.

Speaker, some day in the very near future that data will be accessible through

the public websites of the regional health authorities. We have nothing to hide

with this. We're actually working and meeting tonight with Canada Health Infoway

to set up that kind of portal for this province, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing to hide with this data. The data is

available. If the Member wants it, I'd be happy to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island for a quick question,

please.

MR.

BRAZIL:

It's been a year since the West Coast MHAs lobbied to have Dr. Justin French

address unacceptable wait times for cataract surgery.

Can the minister update us on whether any progress is

made in addressing this very important issue?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier for a quick response.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, indeed, I'd be pleased to say that I met with Dr.

Justin French this week and I provided an update to the Minister of Health and

Community Services, Mr. Speaker.

Our big focus, Mr. Speaker, and listening to the Member

opposite talk about long-term care, he talks about wait-lists in long-term care.

If they had done such a good job, as he suggests there is, why weren't those

long-term wait-lists being taken care of?

Mr. Speaker, we have made significant investments. One

of the proudest achievements of this government is finally moving to a

replacement of the Waterford Hospital; something when this province had more

money than it ever did in its history, you completely ignored.

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 ask the Premier: Before Husky Energy attempted to

resume operations after the forced shutdown last week, did they conduct a

thorough equipment or systems check to ensure that no components were damaged by

the storm? And, if so, is he satisfied with the scale and scope of the check?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite is fully aware, they do have a

safety and environmental protection plan that they must enact and they must

follow.

There is an investigation underway to determine if they

did follow all the protocols required; and, further, Mr. Speaker, to assess

whether or not more protocols are required. The chief safety officer and the

chief conservation officer have been in daily contact with all operators in our

offshore.

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 say to the minister, that a picture recently released

by Husky Energy clearly shows a chain lying across the broken flow line and

connector that Husky has identified as the source of the oil spill – and I don't

mean a necklace, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: If she has had conversations with

the C-NLOPB or Husky Energy about this chain, where it came from and its role in

Friday's spill?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As was indicated over the last couple of days, the

remote-operated vehicle did analyze the flow line and it did see that one of the

– what's called a weak link, Mr. Speaker, actually was damaged. We don't know

the source of that damage. C-NLOPB is investigating, and we'll understand more

as time progresses as to what occurred to have that damage occur or why that

weak link separated.

So, Mr. Speaker, as time progresses we will understand

through the investigation and whatever is required to be done to ensure safety

and environmental protection in this province will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we learn daily of more storm-related

incidents offshore; damage to lifeboats on Hibernia; a fire caused by

over-stress of thrusters on the Henry Goodrich drilling rig; and now questions

about this chain across the SeaRose flow line.

I ask the Premier: Is he confident the C-NLOPB has the

resources needed to conduct multiple safety investigations on a timely basis

when these incidents occur?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To answer directly the question, whatever resources the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board require, they will

certainly have.

This is a very important issue, obviously, for all of

us in this province. We have a chief safety officer and a chief conservation

officer who are reviewing all of the occurrences of the last week. I can say

that C-NLOPB has put a notice on their website as to what damage they are aware

of, and they are considering all of the things that did occur in the last week.

I can also say, though, that the installations are

designed for a harsh environment, and whatever we need to do to ensure safety

and environmental protection will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Norway's independent safety authority says a strong

supervisory authority is a cornerstone of the Norwegian model. In Norway, they

are not afraid to do this, and they know the importance of a safe industry.

I ask the Premier: Will he commit he is going to open

up dialogue with the federal government to create an independent offshore safety

and environmental authority, separate from the C-NLOPB, as in global leaders in

Norway, Australia and even the US?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr.

Speaker, what we commit is working with the federal government on all issues

that impact Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have demonstrated that in

the past.

What happened last Friday, that is a serious incident,

and we're going to let the investigation unfold, as I said so many times. But I

think it's fair to remind the Member opposite, as she keeps raising this issue

and we appreciate that, there is an investigation that's ongoing. The chief

safety officer that currently exists right now is part of 29(b), which came from

Justice Wells's inquiry, and he had said that he felt that this 29(

b) recommendation could satisfy the concerns that he had based on the offshore in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the Member opposite: Let's let the

investigation report, let's see where the recommendations go, and see if we can

make and strengthen the activity that happens offshore. We are committed to do

that, with all stakeholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

In accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act I hereby table the minutes of the House of

Assembly Management Commission meetings held on September 27, 2018. Pursuant to

section 35 of the House of Assembly Act ,

I hereby table the 2017 annual report of the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House

shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to put on the record, the Leader of the

Official Opposition asked for the time when 50 per cent completion would be on

the Canopy production facility. That is March 1, 2019.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students within our province depend on school

busing for transportation to and from school each day; and

WHEREAS there are many parents of school-aged children

throughout the province who live within the 1.6 zone, therefore do not qualify

for this busing; and

WHEREAS policy cannot override safety of our children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to eliminate the 1.6 policy for

elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where

safety is a primary concern.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, I know the minister got up the other day –

Minister, I know you were saying about the courtesy busing and the extra

courtesy stop that's available but, in most cases, the buses are full, so this

is no good for anything. Now, it's a good start and it is only a little start

for the courtesy seating to have another stop so people can avail of it. Also,

the other day when you got up – our caucus are willing to work with the

department and willing to work with the minister. Perhaps we can start off with

just elementary children. It's not the point of providing it for everyone. We

know there's a cost available to that, but all this is about is safety.

I've given you lots of instances in my district where

it's unsafe, where there are 17,000 cars a day traveling along a road where

there are no sidewalks and people cannot walk. The north side hill in Torbay,

every time there's a rainfall, where there are no sidewalks, it washes out and

little children have to walk up that and go to school. It's unsafe.

I'm not asking you to change the policy completely.

That person – like you said the other day – 50 feet away from the school, if

it's safe for them to walk to school, then let them walk to school. But where

it's not safe, that's all we're asking for, and that's what the parents are

asking for.

There are areas in this province where it is safe to

walk to school. Maybe the school is off the main drag and it's off on a shoulder

road, and there are lots of room to walk down there and it's safe for the

children. This is not about eliminating the 1.6. We understand that. We do

understand that, but all I'm asking for today is the safety of the children.

In cases where it's unsafe to walk along the shoulder

of that road, and parents and individuals feel that it's not safe for those

children to be walking there, then address it.

We're not asking to eliminate it altogether. Perhaps we

can work together and start with our elementary children first. Senior high,

maybe it's option that we can keep the 1.6, but just look at it as a safety

issue for children that are in line of being injured.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development for a response please.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the hon. Member opposite because I

think we're getting somewhere with this because, obviously, my big concern, and

the concern for a lot of us – because originally we talked about the motion they

made was to eliminate 1.6 kilometres, which would have meant for us, as a

province, significant changes in our bus routes. We have 1,100 bus routes in the

province.

What we're doing now, Mr. Speaker, we have implemented

a new policy with regard to a courtesy stop. We are seriously looking at these

courtesy stops and continuing to review them. We continue to review policy.

I just want to, again, add to all the people that are

listening, and the people in the province, safety is number one for all of us.

Right now, the existing policy very clearly states that if you're within the 1.6

kilometre, the safety of the children is the responsibility of the family.

While I say that, I am fully aware that there are

different circumstances that families have. Some families do not have the

transportation means to get the children to school. But right now, the policy is

within the 1.6, the safety of the children is the responsibility of the family.

So, Mr. Speaker, understanding that and working with

all of that, it is certainly something that I'm working with and I made mention

before that we will continue, we're looking at and reviewing the courtesy stop

and seeing how effective it is. If, in fact, it is meeting what is required,

then that's fine; if not, we will continue to look at it because safety is

always number one for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell

Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Bell

Island ferry service provides a vital transportation link and is only eight

minutes from port at any given time. Transport Canada regulations do not require

individuals to exit their vehicles during the commute, and the provincial

government's current policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles put people

at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the

vehicle due to an emergency.

In May 2018, a risk assessment recommended that the

Department of Transportation and Works continue to require passengers to vacate

their vehicle while travelling on the Bell Island ferry.

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

of Assembly to urge government to hold public consultations to discuss the

findings of the May 2018 risk assessment for the Bell Island ferry service.

Mr.

Speaker, there's nobody in this House of Assembly who would not argue, and no

person who travels on any ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador would disagree

with improving safety and guaranteeing safety as the primary objective when you

look at how you provide a service in this province, but in this case we've

talked about it, we've looked at it. We've had health professionals assess the

situation, and it's been determined there is a higher risk, when you take into

account at any given time these vessels are less than eight minutes from a port.

The

evacuation time at minimum, on the most modern of the vessels here, is 23 ½

minutes. The time to be able to get a handful – and

that's what we're talking, in some cases none – of those who have either medical

issues or mobility issues out of their vehicles – which they're all going to

have an attendant with, because that's the nature of the ailment they may have –

to get to the muster station, would be less than three to five minutes. But the

risk they face by having to get out of their vehicle, walk across, in some cases

200 feet of decking in winter conditions, get in an elevator to get to a lounge

that is still a full level away from a muster station, which includes not being

able to get out through – there are no ramps, as part of this, if you're in a

wheelchair.

So the

issue here is at the end of the day we've already known, in a short period of

time since this has been instituted, there has already been three injuries to

individuals, people who have mobility issues and those who are coming back from

medical treatments as part of it.

We also

know at the end of the day that we've had an independent assessor who said

there's much more of a risk from a liability point of view. The unions have

said, you know what, we're going to have to instruct our members they can't be

engaged in helping somebody get from their vehicle to the elevator, then up to

the lounge, and then if necessary – which has never happened in over 1.3 million

trips we've had – to evacuate the ferry, to indeed do that at that point.

So at this point we're talking about, there's a higher

risk for those. We're talking a small percentage. The travelling public who have

the ability, that it doesn't interfere and doesn't put them at risk of being

able to get upstairs, should still be able to do it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we'll get to this again in the near

future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development for a response please.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to respond to

that because, obviously, safety is very important on any of our transportation

modes that we have. I know this has been a discussion and a debate we've had for

quite some time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member made mention of the

fact of trying to get people up, that's why we have the modern technology on our

vessels to ensure that people with mobility issues are accommodated.

Mr. Speaker, there are also challenges. He mentioned

the fact about the union has a concern about taking people out of their cars and

getting them to a muster station. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's also a hazard in

that they would have to record the number of people who are in the cars, how

many are in the cars, who's in the car, who's not in the car. So on the surface,

a lot of times when we want to talk about that it seems very simple, but it's

not.

Again, one of the easiest ways which is follow the

rules that are there, and all of our ferry systems throughout the province are

following the same rules, Mr. Speaker. And that is we want to ensure that if

there's an incident, we know and have the protocol that's in place to enable

these people to safely get off the vessels. That's a very important part for us.

I'm sure these discussions and consultations will be

ongoing, but right now, Mr. Speaker, we do have measures in place to protect the

travelling public that are on these vessels.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

are dealing with high levels of taxation, increased unemployment rates,

increased food back usage, increased bankruptcies and many are being forced to

choose between food, heat and medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through

the Public Utilities Board.

Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these

rates are predicted to further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for

the average citizen of our province. While government has indicated they are

working with Nalcor to mitigate rates, they have provided no detailed plan as to

how they intend to do so.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide

all the potential options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive

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

is to be provided to the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny,

feedback and potential suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition again today. I

have about 150 names here primarily from the Southern Shore, communities along

the Southern Shore. This is a theme across our entire province, including

Labrador. I've heard from many, many people who are concerned about what the

power rates are going to look like down the road. We know we've had rate

applications from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They took them back,

thankfully. I believe it was all due to public pressure that that happened.

We had a rate application from Newfoundland Power. They

took that back; again, I believe as a result of public pressure. But, at the end

of the day, we all recognize in this House that there is going to be – we're

looking down the barrel of a gun. That's the reality.

When it comes to our potential power rates, we can all

talk about blame. That's why we have the Muskrat Falls inquiry. Very disturbing

information coming out of there indeed. But, at the end of the day, regardless

of what comes out in the inquiry, we have an issue.

Government has indicated they are going to mitigate

rates. Again, as I've said many times, I wish them well in that. I certainly

hope they will, but simply saying trust us, we're going to look after it, is not

necessarily going to put people's minds at ease, Mr. Speaker. What the people

are asking here is for a plan. Let the people know, what is your plan? If you're

working on stuff, what is it exactly you are working on? Give people some sort

of confidence that you are indeed working on something to mitigate electricity

rates.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest

minimum wages in Canada, and minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS proposals to index the minimum wage to

inflation will not address poverty if the wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS women and youth, and service sector employees

are particularly hurt by the low minimum wage; and

WHEREAS minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010

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

WHEREAS other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing

or considering a $15 minimum wage as a step towards a living wage;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to legislate a

gradual increase in the minimum wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment

thereafter to reflect provincial inflation.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition and the plan that it asks

government to consider is really quite modest; $15 an hour minimum wage seems

like a huge jump, but it's over a long period of time. This petition, I believe,

folks started it in 2017. So that's four years, and we're now at about $11.15 or

a little bit more than $11 right now is our minimum wage.

There was a recent poll done by MQO Research in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is really interesting, Mr. Speaker. It shows

that 87 per cent of the public support government raising minimum wage to $15 –

87 per cent. That's a really high number. All the research has shown that it's

good for the economy.

Also, the only plan that government has right now, and

they keep talking about it, they're saying we're doing something; we're going to

index our minimum wage. But because we have among the lowest minimum wage in

Canada, they're going to be indexing the lowest minimum wage, which will still

keep us as the lowest minimum wage. There's no way we're going to catch up with

other provinces.

I don't believe anybody in this House believes that

people in Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily young people and women, and

disadvantaged groups, are the ones who are working minimum wage jobs. I don't

believe that anybody here in Newfoundland and Labrador believes that these are

the folks who should be paid the lowest in Canada.

I don't believe that they believe that. So why don't

they do something? Mr. Speaker, why don't they do the right thing? It's

happening all over Canada. It's happening all over North America. It's happening

at leaps and bounds in some states in the US. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope

government will do that.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista, that Bill 39,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

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 (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 39)

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.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 39)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Bonavista, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And

Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 41,

and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And

Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 41,

and that the said bill be now read a first 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.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to

introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic

Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act,” carried. (Bill 41)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 41)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency Health

And Paramedicine Services, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be now

read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency

Health and Paramedicine Services, Bill 43, and that the said bill be now read a

first 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.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency

Health And Paramedicine Services,” carried. (Bill 43)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act Respecting The Provision Of Emergency Health And Paramedicine

Services. (Bill 43)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources for

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse

Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 44, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas

Act And The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 44, and that the said bill be now

read a first 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.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Management Of

Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act,” carried. (Bill 44)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue

Administration Act. (Bill 44)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6, second reading of Bill 40.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 40, An

Act to Amend –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Mr.

Speaker, I am moving Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,

seconded by my parliamentary secretary. Can we do that?

In the department, he's done a lot of work on that the

Housing bill as well, Lewisporte-Twillingate.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Why not?

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act.” (Bill

40)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Off

to a great start. It's been a busy day, Mr. Speaker.

But anyway, it's lovely to be standing here speaking to

Bill 40, on what is National Housing Day. When we started working on the

amendments that were required for this bill, we didn't realize that it would be

brought into the House on National Housing Day.

So I was very pleased this morning to go down to city

hall and to participate and celebrate with the City of St. John's on the launch,

today, of their 10-year National Housing Strategy. There were lots of

conversation there around how long it took them to get to where they are today,

and they're quite pleased to be launching that 10-year plan.

The Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, in

response to my Ministerial Statement today, spoke about our plan, our provincial

housing plan now being delayed two years. I don't know anything about our

housing plan being delayed two years. What I can tell you is we have folks that

have been working extremely hard with a National Housing Strategy where we

endorsed the principles of that multilateral framework back in the springtime,

and then we moved into negotiating the bilaterals with the individual provinces.

There has been a tremendous amount of work done on

that. We've asked for flexibility to come out with an agreement that is the

absolute best agreement for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why would

we rush out with our provincial housing and homelessness plan in advance of

knowing what are the details of this bilateral agreement that we are still

working within? So, we're not out the door fast or first because we want to get

it right. We could spend all day in this House talking about things that were

rushed and then, with the fallout, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid the

price because it wasn't right.

We want to get this housing and homelessness plan

right, and we want it to be the best plan that it possibly can be for the people

of this province. Over here on this side of the House, we certainly recognize

that safe, stable and affordable housing is fundamental to the socio and

economic well-being of the people of our province. We recognize that everybody

deserves a place to call home, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we want to see at

the end of the day in this housing and homelessness plan.

So what we're talking about here today – I'm just going

to take a few minutes. It's a brief bill. It's

An Act to Amend the Housing

Corporation Act. We've been looking at this for a little while, recognizing that

some of the language is outdated. We need to update that. We have appointments,

board of directors there with no end date of their term. I guess they could stay

on until they went to their long resting home. I'm not sure how it worked prior

to us being here. You had your CEO and your chair that were one and the same.

So, we're going to clean it up a little bit, Mr. Speaker, primarily just some

housekeeping items here.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, as

people in this House would certainly understand, is a provincial Crown

corporation with a mandate to develop and administer housing assistance, policy

and program for the benefit of low-to-moderate income households.

Mr. Speaker, MHAs would certainly be familiar with the

whole suite of programs that are offered under that social Crown corporation.

The programs provide an immensely valuable support to people in our province

that struggle day to day, that need things like Provincial Home Repair to bring

their homes up to a fire and safety standard, our home heating rebates,

affordable housing and I don't need to get into all of them.

The corporation is governed by a board of directors and

reports to the provincial government through the minister responsible for

Housing. Currently, as the Housing

Corporation Act , the chairperson of the board also serves in a dual capacity

as the chief executive officer and is responsible for the day-to-day operations

of the corporation.

The Housing Corporation is a Tier 1 entity. As most

folks in this Legislature would be aware, the Independent Appointments

Commission is an independent body established to provide merit-based

recommendations for appointments to tier 1 entities scheduled to the

Independent Appointments Commission Act .

Since the inception, Mr. Speaker, our Bill 1 – I guess

our inaugural bill as a government – we wanted to take the politics out of

appointments. You can look back through decades of government and one of the

things that comes up again and again is somebody put their buddy in a position

and we discuss those things in this Legislature.

One of the things that we wanted to do was take the

politics out of that. We have the Independent Appointments Commission, a

merit-based process. Since the inception, Mr. Speaker, of the IAC many agencies,

boards and commissions – including the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation – are reviewing their legislation regarding the appointment of board

members and chairpersons to ensure that they are in line with the IAC act.

What we're going to see here in Bill 40, what we're

proposing today in the proposed amendments to the

Housing Corporation Act is to separate the position of the

chairperson and the chief executive officer. I'm not an expert in board

structure, Mr. Speaker. I spent most of my adult life serving on boards and

committees and, generally, I think you do see that a chairperson and a CEO

certainly are two separate roles.

What I'm familiar with is generally the chairperson and

the board of directors, these are volunteer positions. They work and they have

busy lives. You have a CEO that's separate who would be responsible for running

the day-to-day operational aspects of the corporation, but the chairperson

wouldn't be that person because they simply would have another job, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to apply terms to the appointments of board members and, as I

alluded to at the opening, we are going to modernize language in the act.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to separate the chair and

CEO, under current legislation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint

board members including the chairperson; however, the legislation specifies that

the chairperson shall be the CEO.

Mr. Speaker, we're going through a process right now

where when we reached out to the IAC to say do you have names of individuals

that are interested in sitting on the Housing board. Now, I don't think any of

these folks who put their name forward being interested to sit on the board

really would be willing to take on the CEO part, so it's important that we

separate those two.

With the new merit-based process through the IAC,

people are putting their names forward to be considered as board members and

they likely do not have the time, the interest or possibly even the skill set

necessarily, Mr. Speaker, to fulfill the duties of a CEO.

Before the IAC, Independent Appointments Commission was

put in place there was no process for applying to be on the board – no process.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council would just appoint a board. I guess they

would likely know who these individuals were, they would know these appointees

and the availability of the chair/CEO selected.

Mr. Speaker, we'll all agree that this process lacked

merit and it lacked transparency. Now, with the IAC, the entire public, anybody

in this province, who has an interest with sitting on the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation board, they can put their name forward for

consideration. What happens is we'll reach out and say we're looking for X

number of individuals and they will apply and the IAC will do their work and

they will send some names along. The IAC will recommend qualified people, Mr.

Speaker. The Lieutenant Governor in Council considers those recommendations. But

the LGIC likely wouldn't know if any of those applicants wanted to be considered

as CEO.

Those applicants themselves likely wouldn't be aware

that the existing legislation says the chair would be selected from the board

and the chair would be the CEO. So that's why we're moving forward now, Mr.

Speaker, after all of this time to separate those two.

Conversely, there are people out there, Mr. Speaker,

talented, passionate, capable – what I would call CEO material – who wouldn't

have applied for the board, but they certainly would apply for a CEO-specific

recruitment process. So having two recruitment processes through the IAC that

are merit-based will best serve, I believe, the organization and the province

and separating the chair from the CEO. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, also that

this is a positive step forward in strengthening the governance of the board.

The amendments we are bringing forth today are required

to ensure that the CEO is appointed separately, as this full-time position is

responsible for the general direction, supervision and control of the business

of the corporation. Given that board members may well have other full-time

employment outside their board duties, and the CEO is certainly a full-time

position. So I think you'll know where I'm going with this. It wouldn't be

practical to someone apply for a position on the board and then we say, okay,

you're responsible for the day-to-day running. Probably they're biting off a

little more than they anticipated there. Not practical to fill the position from

those who apply for the board of directors.

Under this amendment, the CEO would be a non-voting

member who would provide operational and program knowledge to the board. While

the chair and the CEO will now be separate positions, both – and I want to

stress this. So while we're separating the chair and the CEO, both will be

subject still to the IAC merit-based process for recommendation to the

Lieutenant Governor in Council.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're separating, but there are no

appointments, I'm going to stick someone in that position. They're still going

to have to apply through the IAC, only now it'll be clearly defined, I am

applying to be the CEO of the Housing Corp., or I am applying to sit on the

board of directors of the Housing Corporation.

Most agencies, boards and commissions separate the

position of chairperson and CEO. This change would, I guess it would bring, as I

see it, the Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation in line with what I believe is

a generally accepted practice. So that's that piece.

Another amendment that we are proposing here today, Mr.

Speaker, the second proposed amendment, it introduces terms to the appointment

of board members including the chair. This will help to establish reasonable

expectations for board members in terms of their appointments and will permit

regular renewal of the board.

I found it interesting when I discovered, Mr. Speaker,

that you could apply to go on this board, this Housing Corporation board, and

there was never an expiry date. Most times we know we are applying to sit on a

board and it's a two year, it's a four year, and then you're up for renewal

after that.

This amendment provides for three-year terms with an

option for three-year renewal. So a three-year term with an option for a

three-year renewal for all 11 board members, including the chairperson. Because

currently the legislation does not prescribe timelines regarding membership for

those 11 board members.

This amendment would also ensure that the NLHC

appointment timelines, again, are in sync with other agencies, boards and

commissions. So simply trying to bring it all in line and to bring some

consistency here, Mr. Speaker.

The third amendment is to modernize language in the

act. The current legislation includes representation for persons with

disabilities as well as regional representation. The final amendment that we are

proposing here today will modernize language in the act in respect to persons

with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I have a whole bunch of information here

around housing and the suite of programs and what they offer but I really don't

think I need to get into that. This is pretty clear cut and simple, separating

the chair and CEO, putting terms in for the board members and modernizing the

language.

I'll have an opportunity I guess to answer questions

once we go into Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To speak to Bill 40; foremost, I would like to thank

both the department and the minister for the briefing, and the minister for her

previous speaking there. I believe she pretty well summed up what the intent of

this bill is.

It's definitely something that is a sign of the times.

Separating both the chair and the CEO provides a bit more continuity.

Whereas,

to the best of my understanding, the CEO is there by contract;

whereas a

chairperson or a member of the board can resign at any time.

Managing such a vital facility within government or

within a Crown corporation, we need continuity. So that was something I did have

a little bit of concern with as it came to the three years with the possibility

of re-appointment.

I almost believe we should put in a termination clause

for half of the board so that we do have a continuation on through it. I did

bring it up in the briefing that I think every, say, six years half of the board

should have to change up. That way we'll always have some experience going

forward, and that will ensure a smooth transition and a smooth functioning of

that board.

Now with both our aging demographic and our challenging

economic times, this corporation in particular is going to come under extreme

stress. It is very important that we have a full-time, dedicated, functioning

CEO to be able to make decisions on their feet.

The same thing with the board, we need an active board.

To make a full-time commitment to a board, for members of the public, often

that's a challenge and it would probably exclude certain members of society from

participating in the board.

So separating the CEO out from the chairperson, that

definitely opens up that chairperson position for basically all members of

society who could commit to the limited amount of meetings that they must attend

and participate in on the board;

whereas a CEO, of course, has to be – because

you're dealing with someone's house and someone's shelter and basically sense of

security in the form of their home, I'm sure the CEO is on call 24-7, 365 days a

year.

That's important, that's a big position because, as I

said, with an aging demographic we're looking at seniors who may either no

longer be able to afford their homes or seniors who find themselves suddenly

alone due to the death of their partner or a separation of their partner,

whatever it may be, that's a perfect facility for them to move into, the housing

units. Again, it's something we're adapting to.

The CEO, Mr. Goss, explained to me – because I had

asked a question about the transition of three- and four-bedroom units down to

one- and two-bedroom units, because right now there's a big demand for these

one- and two-bedroom units. It's a challenge. It's not like you can just go and

lop off two of the four bedrooms and there you go, you got a two bedroom unit.

You have to use those other units.

A lot of these facilities, a lot of these buildings

were built several decades ago and renovating them is a challenge. I'm glad to

see the corporation is up for that challenge and it is a mandate of theirs –

under the direction of the CEO – to start renovating and making more units

available with smaller bedrooms.

As an MHA, when I first got elected, one of the biggest

things that struck me – actually, I got the second most amount of Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing units in my district of that of all the province. I do see

the valuable service it provides. The reality is there are lots of jobs in this

province that just cannot afford to pay large salaries, but those jobs are still

important. We as a people and we as a province are responsible for those

individuals who complete those jobs. That means we do have to make housing

affordable to them, as well as people who work at much higher paying jobs.

My theory and my belief have been: if there's work to

be done, that's a job to be filled. It doesn't matter what the pay is, that's an

important job to be done.

With disparity between the lower income and upper

income and rising housing prices in the past decade or so, the ownership of home

has been out of people's reach. So a lot of people on the lower end of the

income scale have had to use – have been stuck in rental agreements or

rent-to-own agreements. Largely, rent-to-own agreements are not really worth the

paper they're written on because they're not registered with the provincial

registry.

So, really, the owner of that piece of property could

sell that piece of property right out from underneath people who thought they

were paying into a rent-to-own agreement.

Whereas within the Housing

Corporation, I know of several individuals and families that have been decades

in the one unit. You can see the pride of ownership in that unit. That's

something I'm really proud of when people take pride in their home and put a lot

of effort into putting some small improvements into it themselves, keeping it

tidy, keeping it painted.

As we go forward, I cannot foresee housing prices go

down that significantly that a home will be available to everybody in the

private market. I think there will always be need for a facility like the

Housing Corporation to provide homes for people in certain segments of our

society.

Again, that's part of the gap between the lower end and

the upper end, and, of course, even middle-class people. With the highest rate

of bankruptcy, the highest rate of family breakup and joblessness largely in our

history, I'm getting calls to my office, people who had good homes, because

they've lost their jobs they've largely – through no fault of their own, just a

turn in the economy, now they're coming to my office asking how to get into the

realm of social housing.

I'm very pleased to say that my experience with our

contacts at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has been very positive. Granted,

there are always hiccups and there will always be bumps, but that's just part of

the changing.

One example, and I'll never forget it, it was just

before last Christmas. I had a lady call up and, unfortunately, her and her

husband both lost their jobs. Then I guess the stress of the financial hardship,

the two of them separated, and she went from living in a fairly large house in

Southlands to one of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units.

Not only was there a home there for her to move into,

but there was also a whole suite of other provincial programs that she was able

to tap into to help in this transition in life. She had kids that were 13 and 14

years old, as I said, who lived in a fairly expensive home. Now she was in the

social housing system. I checked in on them just recently and they're doing

quite fine. That's where I could see her with pride of ownership or tenancy in

her home, and I was very proud of her to be able to move on through that crisis

situation in her life.

Again, I support this bill, and I think it makes sense.

If the Independent Appointments Commission does continue or does function as it

is intended, I believe that will go a long way to restoring the faith in these

appointments and in these boards and agencies that it's not the individual, it's

not who the individual knows, it's all about the individual themselves.

So, as I said, I'll be fully supporting this bill.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's also an honour to get up today and speak to Bill

40,

An Act to Amend the Housing Corporation Act. Mr. Speaker, I've been in the

role of parliamentary secretary since December 2015, shortly after being

elected. First of all, I just have to make mention of the great work that the

staff members are doing at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They deal with

very difficult situations on a daily basis and I have to commend them for the

great work they're doing.

I just want to thank the Member for Mount Pearl North

for his positive comments toward this change we're making in the act. One of the

things he did allude to was the number of housing units and the size of units

that are typical. Traditionally, most of our units were three- and four-bedroom

units and now the demand, as families got smaller and our aging population, the

number of room units that people are looking for now are typically one- and

two-bedroom.

I had the honour to attend the affordable housing for

St. John's this morning when they did their announcement on the 10-year

strategy. Just looking through some of the notes on that, there was an

interesting statistic they put forward, Mr. Speaker. Out of the estimated

population in 2016, for the City of St. John's there were approximately 109,000

people. Sixty-two per cent of those households had one or two people living in

that household. So it goes to show that the population in St. John's, and surely

throughout rural Newfoundland, the houses and the number of people living in the

households is getting much smaller.

Myself, I'm from a large family, 15 children. So, Mr.

Speaker, a one- or two- bedroom house wouldn't do us much when we were growing

up. We probably needed rooms on top of rooms. Most people, years ago when we

were growing up we had a smaller house, probably only five or six bedrooms. When

it got cold nighttime, traditionally people would turn up the woodstove or turn

up the heat. All we did, one kid jumped from the other bed; they still got to

keep everybody else warm.

So times have changed since my family grew up in

Lewisporte. I came from a very proud family. Like I say, we didn't have a lot of

material things but we had a lot of other great things and a lot of love in our

family. So, Mr. Speaker, that speaks high volumes of our family.

As the minister previously alluded to in Bill 40, the

act, there are basically three components to what we're proposing. First of all,

to separate the position of chairperson and the chief executive officer. I'm not

going to take much time but, essentially, as the minister said, this is common

with most boards and commissions now to have it separate, two separate

positions.

Coming from a municipal background, like many others

here, I compare it to a town council. The way it is now, it's basically the same

thing as you're electing a town council and automatically your mayor is your

CEO, a paid position. The way businesses and corporations operate today, that's

a little different. People want to be involved, be engaged as a board member. It

doesn't necessarily mean they want to run the corporation as the CEO.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, applying terms to board

positions; right now under the corporation there are no terms. Someone could get

on the board and essentially stay there as long as they want. There's nothing,

no regulations in the act or no legislation saying that after two, three years

or four years they have to remove themselves from the board.

What we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that once you

apply, you have a three-year term to start with. Obviously, people may leave for

whatever purposes, whether it be family or personal reasons before their term,

but they have a three-year term. If suited and they want to stay on for a second

term, and the IAC is willing to keep them on, then they can do a second term for

a total of six years.

After the two terms, Mr. Speaker, they will have to

separate themselves from the board then, but that's not to say – after a year or

two years they can re-apply for another position. Again, they would have to go

through the IAC process, and if it's deemed they're a great candidate again,

then they can go back on the board.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the third item we're looking at is

to modernize the language in the act respecting persons with disabilities.

Currently, the language right now, which is a bit dated, calls for a person

physically disabled to be on the board. And, as I said, that language is dated.

We are proposing that it would be changed to a person with disabilities, because

our government is committed to inclusion. We're just going to update that

portion of it.

Mr. Speaker, I' m not going to take much more time. I

just want to say that I will be supporting this bill and I'm quite sure all

Members in this House will be supporting the bill.

Our government takes the well-being of all residents

within our province very serious, and we are committed to better outcomes and a

brighter future for everyone. I think our CEO, our acting CEO right now and all

of his staff are doing just that, Mr. Speaker. They're working hard each and

every day to make sure that persons that are struggling have the opportunity to

have a good a life as they possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to close on that and saying

that I will be supporting Bill 40,

An Act to Amend the Housing Corporation Act,

and I do encourage all other Members to do so.

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'm pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 40, the

Housing Corporation Act . It's

important that we all make our voices known about this because it is a very

important act and it has a number of pieces to it. Modernizing the

Housing Corporation Ac, I

would say bringing it into the 21st century actually, because there are some

things that are in the act,

an act which dates back to 1970, that really are

rather archaic when it comes to accountability and transparency.

I note from the briefing we received, that the

Independent Appointments Commission actually has been recommending to public

entities that they move away from the structure of having the chair and CEO of a

corporation one and the same person. They've been recommending that the CEO be a

separate position, and that's a paid position. Then you also have the chair of

the commission, or whatever the public entity is, in this case the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation.

I think it's actually very, very good that the IAC, the

Independent Appointments Commission, sees its role as making these types of

recommendations and not just finding people for boards and commissions. So I was

really delighted when I saw this, and I'm glad to see the minister took that

seriously.

Having the chair and the CEO as the same person puts an

awful lot of weight in one person and gives that person actually quite a

controlling interest – to put it bluntly. The minister spoke to it from one

perspective and I'm speaking to it from another. It's true that it means a heavy

workload et cetera, but what I'm really happy about is it means that – it is a

conflict, really. If the CEO is also the chair of a board or a commission, the

CEO is sort of his or her own boss, and that surely is not a good way to go.

So to even see that the bill or the act will now say

the CEO will, “subject to the direction of the membership of the corporation,”

be responsible for directing the business of the corporation but will not be the

chair of the board. And that certainly, in this day and age, is the way we would

want a public body and a public entity to be run. That the person in the role of

CEO is a non-voting member of a board, and a board – those who are the

volunteers and, hopefully, people with expertise are the ones who make the

decisions that the CEO will then follow.

I really am delighted to see this. It hopefully will

mean that the NLHC will continue to do the wonderful work it does, but will also

now become a board that hopefully will have no ties to government, no ties to

the CEO and will be a board that's there for the good of the people.

I'm not going to speak, at this point in time, to all

the details in the bill. I think that's been done by some. There's nothing there

that I have a problem with; things that I'm pleased about.

I am also pleased about the fact that we're changing

the tenure of board members. Again, I use the word archaic, to think we had a

bill that said: “All members of the” board “hold office during pleasure.” As

long as they want to be on the board, they could be on the board. Again, pretty

archaic in this day and age.

So now with the appointment to be for three years with

an option to renew just for one term, and to do it in a staggering way as is

laid out in the bill so that not everybody comes in at the same time for the

same period and then you change the whole bunch all at the same time, but to

have timelines and staggering terms will be extremely important so that we don't

have everybody going all at the same time. That's sort of the details I want to

speak to.

I'd like to speak a bit about the role of the NLHC,

because it is important. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is

responsible for seeing that people in this province have housing, and have good

housing; have affordable housing and good housing. Its social mandate has really

increased over the years.

I can remember back in the 1980s, I was doing community

development work in the province, based in St. John's, and our office and one of

my co-workers became involved with the people who live in Rabbittown. They had a

vision, and their vision was they wanted to really deal with the issue of

literacy. So many people who lived in the Rabbittown area were not literate, but

in order to deal with that they also wanted a place where people could come from

the community. They wanted a couple of units to be dedicated to an association

and become a community base.

It took them a little bit of struggling at that time –

I'm talking about 35 years ago. It took a bit of struggle at that time for them

to get NLHC to understand the importance of having a community centre and having

a tenants' organization and a centre that was right there where everybody lived.

The argument was, well, if we take a couple of units that's taking housing away.

But this community group were very strong, they were articulate and they

understood the importance of doing this. NLHC – it didn't have an L in it at

that time – but NLHC at that time finally said yes, and turned over two units to

become part of the community and to be used by the community.

So now it's taken for granted, that where you have NLHC

housing you have a community centre, that you have a tenants' association, that

you have staff from NLHC who interact with the people in the community so that,

right now, with the range of programs that they have, it's wonderful. Their

programs include affordable housing, down-payment assistance, home heating and

repair assistance, homelessness programs, emergency housing for families

escaping domestic violence and, as I've talked about, the community centres. So

it has really developed over the last 30 years and it's been quite exciting.

Recently, the corporation reviewed its own mandate and

went out and consulted, they re-looked at their mandate, their programs, their

service delivery, how they use their money. They consulted with staff and

community organizations, housing residents and clients of their various

programs. From that, they have really brought in a lot of efficiencies in NLHC

itself; 14 management positions were eliminated and an action plan was promised.

Now, we still don't have the action plan, but the

minister did say earlier today in another context that it is hoped for 2019, the

provincial strategy, and I think it'll be extremely important to have that put

in place because the NLHC wants to use some of the federal-provincial strategy

funds to renovate more large units into a greater number of smaller ones. People

are having smaller families today than they did 30 years ago when these units

were first built, so it's important to do that.

But there's one point I want to make, which doesn't

have to do with NLHC specifically, but has to do with housing needs, and that is

we have a lot of people who receive income support from AESL, and adult

education and seniors. The income support from AESL takes care of housing needs

of people. These people may be in apartments; they may be in boarding houses.

The condition under which some of them are living is abominable, but nobody has

responsibility.

AESL does not have responsibility for the housing

situation in which people are. They give money, so that people can be where they

are, but they're not responsible for the condition of the living situation. It

becomes really problematic because NLHC is only responsible for its units. Once

again, it begs the question of why we don't have a housing division in our

government, because housing is more than the units that are owned by NLHC.

I've spoken to this many times in this House, and

earlier this year I spoke to it, because of a situation on one of the streets in

my district where people, homeowners on the street, were having problems in

relations with people who were in a house that was a boarding house. The

conditions of that boarding house were really awful. Yet, the city was involved

on one level, though it didn't have responsibility. The province was involved,

but it didn't have responsibility. Nobody had responsibility for the housing

situation of these people who were receiving money from government to be there.

So, I put this out because it isn't NLHC's

responsibility; they're only responsible for their units. But it does beg the

question of why we don't have a housing division inside of government that deals

with the broader housing issues. Because homelessness is more than just having a

roof over your head, whether that roof leaks or not is extremely important and

everything else about the house in which one lives.

I put that out there; it isn't part of this bill in one

way, but it is in a general way. If we're concerned about the housing needs of

our people, Mr. Speaker, then we have to be concerned about more than just what

happens inside of NLHC and what it's responsible for.

Having said that, I will be supporting the bill and I

will continue pushing government to look at the needs of people and the needs

for having a housing division in government.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to take a moment to say that I'll be

supporting this bill. There's nothing earthshattering here, for sure, but, no

doubt, it's sort of cleaning up some of the language, modernizing some of the

language. It's more inclusive certainly for persons with disabilities. It's some

of the wording, which is good to see. I hope we see that in all of our

legislation.

Obviously, we're just making a separation between the

chair of the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and CEO; that kind of

makes sense. The only question I had at the time was did that mean that by

creating a CEO we're going to incur another big salary, but I'm told that's not

the case because the person who is acting in both those roles is already working

for the government with said salary. So it's not like we're creating a new one,

which is a good thing, because obviously where we are financially we need to

look at ways to save money, not spend more.

Anyway, with all that said, the terms of office is

going to be a three-year term of office. The ability to have a second term,

prior to now, someone could be appointed to this board and stay there forever,

in theory. I'm sure that never happened, but they could stay there as long as

they wanted or at the discretion of the minister of the day, as long as the

minister wanted that person. Now, it's three years with the opportunity for a

second three, so six years maximum.

Obviously, I think it's important that whoever's

appointed to the board, that they be staggering terms so that we don't have

wholesale changes and all of the institutional knowledge go out the door with

everyone that was there, so staggering the positions on the board is important.

I'm sure the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi would've been proud; I

asked a question about gender equity, actually, at the briefing, and I was told

that is definitely going to be a consideration for the board as well, so that's

good to hear.

Like I said, beyond that it's nothing here that we

wouldn't support, and I'll be voting for it.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Members who spoke to the bill, the

Member for Mount Pearl North, thank him for supporting these amendments that

we're bringing forward today.

He referenced in his district he has a lot of housing,

and I'm familiar with some, spent a little bit of time up in Masonic, and I have

some pleasant memories from there, actually, where those folks really are a

little community within your district. There are some good programs on the go

and we've been happy to support some through our Community Healthy Living

initiatives and things like that, because we recognize also that inclusion and

getting out and about is good for their physical and their emotional and mental

well-being.

I want to thank my colleague, my parliamentary

secretary, the MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate for speaking, does a great job

assisting me in that really large social department, speaks very passionately

about the issues, and he referenced coming from a family of 15.

This is exactly why, Mr. Speaker, we have a quite a

daunting challenge on our hands right now. We have many, many large housing

units because we had the large families of yesteryear, but to this day and age

we have families, some that are having no children or some that are having one

or two, and we need to figure out how we take these large homes and we break

them down into smaller units, one- and two-bedroom units.

I want to recognize the Member for St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi for supporting the bill. I'm sure there are lots of housing needs in

her district as well. I want to say to her, I was fairly new in my portfolio

when it was brought to my attention the need for those support workers connected

with the community centres. I went down and I met with five executive directors

and I understood clearly the need for going out into those little

neighbourhoods, where children are coming from school and that's where they are,

and the value of having supports right there for the people. We were happy to be

able to work through that and to address one of the needs there.

I've heard clearly from the Members, the importance of

maintaining some of the positions on the board in terms of staggering – I guess

we would call it – and having some of that institutional knowledge from the last

number of years there and not just having a whole slate of brand new board

members. So that's something we're certainly looking at as well.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member for St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi's comment about a housing division within government; now, I

will say that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have some fantastic individuals

over there doing some great work, much of it in really challenging conditions.

We've recently – from AESL and from our regional health authorities – folded in

the transition houses and the emergency shelters. All part of a view with this

housing first approach. There are, I would call, experts over in housing. It's

about that housing continuum, all being housed under one roof.

In addition to that, here in this government, since I

have been in this portfolio, there has been tremendous strides to work across

departments to address things exactly like the Member talked about. Myself and

my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, my colleague, the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, we all work collectively.

Poverty reduction, Mr. Speaker; we recognize – just

like we're adopting a Health-in-All Policies approach – that reducing poverty is

something we need to work at because of the complexity of the nature of that

across departments. So I would say to the hon. Member, there's a lot of work

happening right now across departments when it comes to things like housing,

poverty reduction, unemployment issues and support those that we might consider

more marginalized or vulnerable in our society.

I also want to recognize the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands and to thank him for his comments and supporting this bill.

I guess right now, Mr. Speaker, I'll just take my place

and see if my hon. colleagues have any questions as we move into Committee.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 40 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.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing

Corporation Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social

Development, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Whole to consider

Bill 40.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider 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.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The

Housing Corporation Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act.”

(Bill 40)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

would like to know if there will be consideration in the future to put the

staggering effect in for members of the board. Given that it is a possibility

that we could have the whole board resign the one time because their terms are

up. Is that a consideration we could look at?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

thank the Member for the question. Having spent much of my adult life on boards,

I certainly have a first-hand appreciation for the importance of that. We have a

number of members that are on the board finishing up. So one of the things we

could look at is not have the whole suite go out the door, to preserve some of

that institutional knowledge and to bring that to the new board members that

will come through the IAC process. So that's certainly something we're looking

at.

CHAIR:

The

hon. The Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

I correct in ascertaining that this will not actually result in any additional

costs? Because the original CEO, being the chair of the board, will get paid for

the meetings;

whereas now, because it's two separate positions, the CEO gets his

or her salary and the chair will just get their per diem.

So am I correct in ascertaining that there will be no

increase in costs?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Me