PDF Version

March 21, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 8

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we welcome members of Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador who are

seated in the public gallery and will be the subject of a statement a little

later.

also welcome back Pages Raylene Mackey and Fatima Rathore who are returning

Pages and are currently studying at Memorial University.

would also like to introduce two new Pages who are joining us. Haley Kenny

has completed a bachelor of arts with a major in political science and a

minor in economics. She is currently working on a master of arts, political

science at Memorial University.

I'm

also very pleased to say that we've partnered with Vera Perlin to provide

opportunities for their employment program. We have Crystal Snelgrove

joining us. She is currently enrolled in the Vera Perlin Society's Career

Education and Exploration Program. This is a pre-employment skills program

focused on job readiness, training and an introduction to the world of work.

It is a 10-month program operated by the staff of the Employment Division of

Vera Perlin and is housed out of the College of the North Atlantic.

Welcome our new Pages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear

Members' statements from the Member for the District of Lewisporte

Twillingate; the Member for Topsail Paradise; the Member for the District

of Exploits; Stephenville Port au Port; Mount Pearl Southlands; and

Labrador West.

recognize the Member for the District of Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Kinsmen Club of Notre Dame.

This year the club is celebrating 40 years of local service to Lewisporte

and surrounding communities.

The

association is involved in various fundraisers, such as ticket lotteries,

dances, catering and the newest, Chase the Ace. The Kinsmen Club donates

annually to such organizations as the South and Central Health Foundation,

the Ronald McDonald House, the Children's Wish Foundation, the Salvation

Army Christmas Kettle and Happy Tree. Also, they are involved in donating to

the local fire departments, assisting sport and recreation groups, school

activities and individuals or families going through difficult times.

During the 40-year history of the Kinsmen Club of Notre Dame, the dedicated

service of current and past members has contributed to over $3.1 million

being donated back to residents and organizations in need.

The

Kinsmen Club national motto is Serving the Communities' Greatest Needs and

this

chapter has truly lived up to that model.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in celebrating the contribution

the Kinsmen Club of Notre Dame has made over the past 40 years.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are blessed with residents

who have a strong sense of community spirit and choose to become involved

with the planning and execution of various social events and activities that

they and the entire community can enjoy.

Today, I rise to recognize the Town of Paradise who recently celebrated

their winter carnival: Snow and Ice in Paradise. From February 12 to the 21

there was something for everyone to enjoy. There were 10 fun-filled days in

the Town of Paradise that came together and celebrated the splendor of

winter as much as they could, and which featured fun activities for adults

and children of all ages. These activities would not be possible if it

weren't for the numerous volunteers, corporate sponsors, the councillors

themselves and especially the staff of the town, who through tireless work,

effort and support, their commitment and hard work made this winter festival

a great success and a time of enjoyment for all residents.

ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the Town of

Paradise and its residents and wish them continued success with Snow and Ice

in Paradise in the years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

rise today to acknowledge the dedication and efforts of Exploits Search and

Rescue. The team assists the RCMP by providing trained volunteers to conduct

ground searches for persons who become lost in the Central wilderness region

of the Island.

Over

the years, the team's role has expanded to include water searches, and it

frequently finds itself searching for drowning victims or assisting the RCMP

Dive Team. The team also assists the RCMP with evidence searches in crimes

ranging from theft to murder.

The

team is comprised of members from the Exploits region and partners with

local fire departments and the RCMP, with traffic control, site security and

evacuation during emergencies, and engages local communities and agencies

with disaster planning.

Exploits Search and Rescue has realized many happy outcomes and,

regrettably, some unhappy outcomes the most recent being the recovery of a

drowning victim, Roger Freeman, of Norris Arm South.

ask all hon. Members to keep the Freeman family in our prayers, and to join

with me in thanking Exploits Search and Rescue for all that they do.

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.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand today in this hon. House to acknowledge the tremendous and

heartwarming efforts of the Bay St. George Sick Children's Foundation. This

organization was formed in 1995 with a mandate to lessen the financial

burden on families with children that need to travel outside the Bay St.

George region for medical appointments.

Over

the past five years, the organization has provided in excess of $400,000 to

226 different families that required some 488 trips to various medical

appointments both inside and outside the province.

Yesterday, March 20, marked the 21st consecutive year in which the

organization held a telethon to raise funds for its ongoing efforts. The

telethon was a huge success. A total of $37,388 was raised during a

nine-hour period. This, of course, would not have been possible without

partners such as the College of the North Atlantic, Eastlink, over 60

community volunteers, the generosity of those who made pledges and, of

course, the board of directors that serve on the foundation.

ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Bay St. George Sick

Children's Foundation on their successful telethon and applaud them for

their ongoing efforts in assisting families in need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Chair

of Committees.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it is my

privilege to stand in this hon. House to offer congratulations to a group of

individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my

community.

The

Mount Pearl Sports Hall of Fame was founded in 1995 by the Mount Pearl Sport

Alliance and since that time has inducted 76 tremendous individuals. Today I

would like to acknowledge the achievements of four others: Wince Taylor has

been inducted into the athlete category for his tremendous accomplishments

in the sports of ice hockey, ball hockey and baseball; Jennifer Andrews for

her accomplishments primarily in the sport of soccer, although she also has

many achievements in the sports of basketball, volleyball, swimming, hockey

and softball.

Inducted into the builder category are Dave Legrow for his tremendous

contribution to soccer and Dave Randell for his significant impact on

hockey, soccer and baseball in Mount Pearl. These individuals are a credit

to their respective sports and to their community.

would ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating them

on this significant accomplishment and wish them all the very best in their

future sporting endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to salute the Newfoundland and

Labrador Provincial Drama Festival, which will celebrate its 66th

anniversary in Labrador West from March 29 to April 2. The festival is a

testament to the provincial government's long-standing support for the arts

in our province.

Audiences in Labrador City and Wabush will be treated to cutting-edge live

theatre presented by theatre companies from across Newfoundland and

Labrador. Plays slated for performance this year include David Gow's

Cherry Docs , Painting Churches

by Tina Howe and A Guide to

Mourning by Eugene Stickland.

The

festival this year will feature productions by three Labrador theatre

companies: the Northern Lights Theatre Company, the Carol Players from

Labrador West and the Mokami Players of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The

adjudicator this year is Greg Malone.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Drama Festival is a tremendous way of

showcasing the talents of local performers on a province-wide stage. Its

mission of bringing live theatre to every region of the province helps to

nurture the outstanding performing spirit for which Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are well known.

ask all Members of his hon. House to join me in celebrating this year's

Provincial Drama Festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Honour 100 we

have the Member for the District of Burin Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

I will now read into the

record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First

World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval

Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a

moment of silence.

Lest

we forget: Beadon S. Colbourne, Edward Louis Cole, Samuel B. Cole, Adam

Coles, Albert Victor Coles, John Collier, Ward Collier, George W.

Collins, James Collins, John Joseph Collins, Leo James Collins, Martin

Bertram Collins, Richard Collins, William Joseph Collins, Frank Columbus,

Frederick Columbus, Maurice Comor, Daniel Francis Connors, James Patrick

Connors, Maurice Gregory Connors, Michael Conran, Peter Constantine,

Jeremiah Conway, Alfred Stanley Cook, Charles Cook, Harold Cook, Henry

William Cook, James Cook, Thomas Cook, William Rex Cook, Harry Coombs, Peter

Cooper, Ward Mellage Cooper, Thomas Copley, Laurence Joseph Corcoran,

William Costello, William Patrick Costello, Louis Coughlan, Norman Coultas,

Harrison Courage.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Aboriginal Peoples Week, a

series of important events taking place at Memorial University from March 21

to 24 in response to the release of the Final Report of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the significant role of education and

post-secondary institutions in reconciliation was highlighted in several

recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

report. It included a focus on increased access to post-secondary education

for Aboriginal youth and the need for courses and programming on Aboriginal

culture, language and history, as well as issues relevant to Aboriginal

peoples, culture and language.

There are more than 20 thought-provoking sessions

happening over a four-day period during the week, including a Harris Centre

public forum on the impact of Aboriginal Residential Schools in Newfoundland

and Labrador. The events are intended to spark dialogue and discussion, in

addition to responding to the release of the

final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. They

also demonstrate Memorial's role in not only helping to safeguard Aboriginal

history, cultures and languages, but also ensuring that students gain a deep

understanding of Aboriginal affairs.

Mr.

Speaker, Aboriginal and indigenous studies is an important field in Canada

and around the world. We all have a role to play in reconciliation. I am

pleased that Memorial is moving forward with programming to educate and

inform about this important part of Canadian history.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I'd like to thank the

Premier for an advance copy of the statement. I, along with my colleagues in

the Official Opposition, join with the government in recognizing Aboriginal

Peoples Week.

know that education is a key piece of reconciliation, and access to

post-secondary education for Aboriginal youth is paramount. I encourage

government to support Aboriginal youth and all youth in their educational

endeavours.

also know there needs to be a focused and organized effort to ensure that

Aboriginal culture and tradition has an increased presence in post-secondary

institutions. We encourage members of the public to take

part in the

sessions at Memorial University during Aboriginal Peoples Week.

I'd

like to thank Memorial University for the role it plays in the

reconciliation of Aboriginal issues and the assistance it provides with

social goals of reconciliation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

too, thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted

to hear that Memorial University is holding sessions on residential schools

and Aboriginal student issues in honour of Aboriginal Peoples Week.

When

the Premier was in Opposition he stated the need for government to act on 28

recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that fall under

provincial jurisdiction. I'm sorry he didn't tell us today that he now has a

commitment to a timeline as to when his government will implement these

recommendations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today

in this hon. House to recognize this coming Saturday, March 26, as Purple

Day for epilepsy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today I had the privilege of meeting members of Epilepsy Newfoundland and

Labrador as we signed the official proclamation for 2016. Their continued

dedication to this worthwhile cause is inspiring. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank them for their contributions on behalf of those living

with the condition.

Mr.

Speaker, epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders in the

world. Approximately one in 26 people is expected to develop epilepsy in

their lifetime. Currently, it affects over 300,000 Canadians, including more

than 10,000Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

For

decades, members of Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador have provided support

and information about epilepsy to individuals and their families throughout

the province. I encourage everyone to visit the organization's website at

www.epilepsynl.com to learn more about the organization and the daily realities of living

with epilepsy.

ask all residents to join me in wearing the colour purple for Purple Day

Saturday, March 26, and to participate in activities taking place in their

communities to support those living with epilepsy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

first like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

We join with the government in acknowledging Epilepsy Awareness Month and

also the work that Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador does in our province.

well, I'd like to join the minister in encouraging all members of the

general public, all people, to wear and I know that Epilepsy Newfoundland

and Labrador has been encouraging people to wear purple from the 24th to the

26th. We join them in encouraging people to do so as well.

know that epilepsy impacts many, many families, many people in our province.

Growing a better understanding and awareness of epilepsy would benefit every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I would encourage them to learn more about

epilepsy and how it affects families.

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.

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I wish to

congratulate Epilepsy NL on their decades of support for those living with

this condition. Sadly, there remain public misconceptions and fears about

epilepsy which can be very damaging to people living with it.

Public understanding of this most common neurological disorder is key to

dispelling fears and prejudice, which allows those who live with the

condition a fuller life in a society free of stigma. I encourage everyone to

learn more.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday past, the last sitting day of the House, the government

gave notice and added two borrowing bills to the Order Paper.

ask the Minister of Finance today: Since taking office, how much has your

government borrowed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

gives me mixed feelings to stand in this House and acknowledge the fact that

we've been very successful in our borrowing program since being sworn in on

December 14. As of Friday, the number has moved to $1.985 billion that our

government has been able to secure in borrowing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ask the minister: Does that amount you just advised the House of here, does

that include Treasury bill program?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I don't really

understand the Member opposite's question. Does that include did he say

Treasury Board borrowing?

AN HON. MEMBER:

T-bills.

MS. C. BENNETT:

T-bills?

AN HON. MEMBER:

No.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Oh, it doesn't

include T-bills. I'm sorry; I thought he said Treasury Board. I didn't hear

the last word. It doesn't include T-bills.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, can the minister advise us, what's the current balance on the Treasury

bill program?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as the

Member opposite would know, last year when he brought in his budget, at the

time his government said they needed to do borrowing in the vicinity of

about $4.85 billion. When we were sworn in in December and came into the

fiscal situation that we are now charged with correcting, there wasn't a

strategic borrowing plan in place. As a result of that, we've been working

very hard with officials to make sure that we have a strategy in place. I

look forward to providing more information about that in the upcoming

budget.

I'm

very pleased to say that we've been able to secure $1.985 billion since

January. When the Member opposite refers to T-bills, one of the challenges

with T-bills is they're short-term money which makes things very risky from

a stability perspective financially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Treasury bill program provides cash and opportunity for government

on an evolving and revolving basis. We know it's been as much as $780,000

that has been in the Treasury bill program.

ask the minister: Has there been any changes made to that program? Has the

amount been increased or changed since you've taken office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During 2015, on September 28, I wrote the premier a letter asking for an

update on the fiscal circumstances facing our province. This was a letter

that the former premier, now the Leader of the Official Opposition, did not

respond to. As my colleague just mentioned, since the election she and the

work of the officials in her department have done a great job of securing

$1.985 billion in long-term financing. This would include term loans,

really, from essentially three years to 30 years.

What

the former leader is talking about when he mentioned some less than $800

million in Treasury bills well, I can assure the Member opposite, if he

would have looked into the finances the day before he left office because

when we went in, the first thing I was faced with was $1.8 billion in

Treasury bills. This was short-term money that was on the books at that

stage, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

order for the province to borrow, approval must be obtained through the

House of Assembly or through special warrants approved by the Lieutenant

Governor in Council which, as we know, is Cabinet.

ask the Premier: Since taking office and since this borrowing has been put

in place, what approvals and what legislative authorization was obtained in

order to do that borrowing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

In December, there was an

approval made through Cabinet of an extra $400,000 that was necessary then

to actually take us as a government into the current fiscal year. It went

from $2 billion to $2.4 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

that through a special warrant, that was done through Cabinet? Was that done

through a special warrant?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I

might have said $400 million but it went from $2 billion to $2.4 billion. So

that's an extra $400 million, which is a directive from Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just

to clarify, I ask the Premier again: Was that through a special warrant that

Cabinet gave that authorization?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as the

Premier has said, Cabinet approved the movement from $2 billion, which was

approved as part of the Loan Act

activity that happened in this House last spring, to $2.4 billion, which was

allowing us, as a government, to continue to make progress on de-risking our

debt.

Many

people in this province will understand that when you have short-term

borrowing that is connected to a very volatile market such as T-bills can

be, it is important to get some security and stability around that

borrowing. Certainly, we felt it was important to do what we could. I'm

really pleased with the work we've done so far with the $1.985 billion since

January.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

sounds like it is a special warrant. Members seem to be reluctant to answer

definitively if it was a special warrant or not a special warrant.

ask the minister or the Premier: Special warrants are required to be tabled

here in the House, and I ask them when they intend on doing that.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, there have been two bills that were actually tabled in this House now.

One was Bill 9, which is to amend the

Loan Act, 2015 , that will take us from $2 billion to $2.4 billion. That

is Bill 9. Bill 10, which will be the

Loan Act, 2016 , will be the legislation that will take us from which

will be an extra $1.6 billion. This is Bill 9 and Bill 10.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just

to correct the Premier, the bills have not been tabled in the House. A

notice was provided on Thursday, but the bills have not yet been tabled in

the House. We have not been provided with, or the House has not been

provided with, a copy of those bills as of yet, so we're not sure when they

intend on bringing these to second reading. It may be today that they bring

the bills to the House. According to the House of Assembly, Bill 9 and Bill

10 have not been tabled here in the House.

ask the Premier once again, if he obtained a special warrant, there is

legislation that requires those special warrants to be tabled here in the

House, not the bills but the special warrant to be tabled in the House. I

ask him when they intend on doing that.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is an

interesting pattern that's presenting itself from the Member opposite. It

seems that if he doesn't like the answer to the question, he's likes to ask

it over and over again.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the two motions we made last week around the

Loan Act are on the Order Paper

for today. We look forward to debating them with Members opposite as we

progress this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ask the questions because we're not being provided with the information. The

minister opposite has said and speaks to say that she and her government,

the Premier and his government, are open and transparent going to be more

open and transparent than any government before. I know I'm going back to a

line of questioning that we did repeatedly here in the House when the

Minister of Finance rose and she said she had created savings through

discretionary spending and refuses to provide the details.

Now,

today, we have a bill coming to the House. We now learn it sounds like

through a special warrant that they've done borrowing, which legislation

requires them to table here in the House.

will ask the minister again maybe it wasn't a special warrant but if it

was a special warrant, because they're reluctant to say, would you at least

check with your officials and make sure that, if required, you will table

that in the House before the session ends for Easter, as required by the

legislation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to say it again. It appears that the Member opposite, when he doesn't

like an answer to a question that he asks, when we give an answer, he likes

to ask the question over and over and over again. I've been asked 16 times

in this House the same question. I'm not going to continue to not call him

out on that behaviour.

he continues to want us to answer the same question over and over again, I

will stand here and answer it. I look forward to debating the two loan bills

that we put forward last week in this House with the hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again I'm going to correct the minister because they haven't been put

forward; it's only notice has been given on Bill 9 and Bill 10. They've yet

to be tabled in the House. I actually checked the House of Assembly website

this morning. They have not yet received first reading, which would be the

first stage in the House when the bills are tabled.

The

bills have not been tabled. We have not been provided a copy of them. I'll

continue to ask questions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador as long as the minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

refuses to answer them

and provide the information to the people of the province. We're going in to

debate a serious bill, what I'm understanding from Members opposite, one we

haven't seen yet, and the minister won't provide the details.

I'll

ask the Premier: Does the Financial

Administration Act or legislation require you to pass those legislations

Bill 9 in this fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm

assuming the Member opposite would have known, based on his experience in

Cabinet, that no warrant is required, that an order-in-council was issued

and was posted online by Cabinet Secretariat related to the decision that

Cabinet made in December. Maybe the Member opposite doesn't understand how

Cabinet works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I know full

well how Cabinet works, and I full well know what the legislation requires

as well. The Member continuously neglected to answer the question if they

had obtained a special warrant. It was a simple question.

we've seen repeatedly, the secretive minister opposite here refuses to be

open and transparent and provide information. We ask direct and simple

questions and the Member opposite fails to answer them. So I thank her for

clarifying that.

I'll

also ask her: When will we see Bill 9 for the first time? How much time will

we have before we are forced to debate this bill?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the

motion is on the Order Paper. I've actually said, in response to his

question twice, that I look forward to debating those in the House one of

them today.

The

Member opposite obviously has not the ability to listen, or he wants to

continue to use a certain style of interrogative questions in this House so

that he can ask questions over and over again when he doesn't like the

answers. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue to stand on my feet, I'll answer

his questions, but if he's going to ask the same thing over and over again,

I'm not sure the people at home are getting value for their money here in

the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

the minister does confirm that they're intending to debate Bill 9 today when

the bill has not yet been tabled in the House. We've not been provided with

a copy of the bill. It's a very important bill, too, I say, Mr. Speaker. A

very important bill for the people of the province because Members opposite

are asking us to debate today a bill allowing them a borrowing capacity for

last year, '15-'16, when the Minister of Finance won't provide any details

on savings or spending to the House of Assembly.

ask the minister: We have Bill 9 and Bill 10; will you rush Bill 10 through

the House like you're doing with Bill 9 as well?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to correct the Member opposite. There is nothing being hidden. I have

repeatedly answered his questions several times. He's asked the question 16

times, and I've said we will present the details of the savings that we

talked about in this House during the budget.

When

it comes to this particular bill, I remind the Member opposite that he sat

in a Cabinet and he sat on government side of the House for many, many

years, and he knows exactly, or should know exactly, how the

Loan Act debate happens. I'll look forward to having that discussion

with him here this afternoon, but I will not stand here and allow the Member

opposite to continue to use the tactics he's using without asking back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, federal Minister Foote announced that our province will receive $32

million in federal funding from the Fiscal Stabilization Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, there's more.

This

works out to about $60 per capita, a number established in 1987.

ask the Premier: Did the request to have a discussion with the federal

government to consider modernizing the calculation formula which allows

Newfoundland greater access to the Stabilization Fund which is used to

offset a downturn in resource-based revenue the current Stabilization

Program will give approximately $32 million offset from an $18 billion

equalization program this year.

ask the Premier: Is that acceptable to our province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

As the Member knows, this

is not at all about an offset to an outdated equalization program or a

program that currently exists. What it is is $32 million that is based on a

formula at $60 per person; the same one that Alberta will be receiving and

was announced today as well.

received this once before in our history; however, the Member opposite has

really, what I would say, somewhat of a selective memory because based on

comments that his leader had in The

Telegram just this week on two occasions, Mr. Speaker, this former

administration had an opportunity to negotiate an amendment to the

equalization program and twice twice they did not engage with seeking

amendments to the equalization formula, and shame on them to be raising this

in the House of Assembly today when they missed two opportunities to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Premier said we didn't do it. Sure, with his great relationship with the

federal government, why doesn't he do it now and get the assistance for

Newfoundland and Labrador? Don't be passing the buck, I'd say to him, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, last

week in the House I asked the Premier for an update on CETA. At that time,

he indicated there were negotiations ongoing in regard to the fisheries

fund. As we know, we negotiated along with our very efficient trade

negotiations Newfoundland and Labrador. We agreed to circumstances where

Newfoundland and Labrador would support CETA. As well, that included a

Fisheries Investment Fund.

ask the Premier: Are you renegotiating the elements of support of

Newfoundland and Labrador or are you renegotiating the fisheries fund? Which

is it? You can't have both.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I have to clarify one of the questions the Member opposite just asked

about the equalization formula. I think the Member opposite is quite aware,

or at least should be quite aware, that the equalization formula is driven

by the federal government and is up for renegotiation or up for redefining

and amending back the next opportunity is 2019.

he was so keenly interested in this formula being wrong listen, I have

every reason to believe it should be changed but for them to not engage in

the two opportunities they had, I will again say it is shameful for them to

be raising this here today when they had the opportunity.

Now,

on negotiations with other agreements that we could potentially find

ourselves in and will be negotiating with the federal government, if it's

CETA or a side agreement, that being around the fisheries fund. I would say,

Mr. Speaker, he cannot say are they renegotiating because, guess what? They

never negotiated anything they delivered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, CETA was

certainly historic in the fact that the federal government wanted provincial

provinces to engage in one-on-one dialogue, and we did that. Through looking

at a number of chapters in the procurement, regional development, a whole

number of range of options, obviously tariffs, seafood into Europe and a

fisheries fund.

the Premier saying that none of that was supported by the former

administration and agreed to by the federal government? So basically he's

saying there is no Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; Newfoundland

and Labrador is not supported. So you're starting from scratch in that

process again. Is that what you're saying?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

can tell you one agreement, though, now when I recollect about the

performance of the previous administration, I can tell you one agreement

that they were able to get a signature on, they were able to get two

signatures on the federal government, the Harper government, and the past

Davis government in this particular case.

They

were able to get an agreement on this: In committee committee

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to repay equalization that they identified

in 2005. And in the time that we face in Newfoundland and Labrador, what did

they do last April? They committed to Newfoundland and Labrador to pay back

over $20 million a year. That's what you got from Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and

I say with his great relationship he got $32 million of $18 billion

equalization. That's the help he's gotten us from Ottawa. Well done again, I

say.

Mr.

Speaker, he hasn't answered the question on the Comprehensive Economic and

Trade Agreement. This jurisdiction laid out parameters to the Government of

Canada that we would support a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

all laid out, over 20 chapters of provisions, including a fisheries fund.

ask the Premier again he hasn't answered is he pulling support for the

CETA in Newfoundland and Labrador; and, if not, what is he negotiating or

renegotiating? It's done. Either you agree with it or you don't which is

it?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Maybe he's in the

room.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

we've been actually welcomed in a lot of rooms. It seems to me the Members

opposite are a little jealous of that, I would say right now.

Mr.

Speaker, there is one thing right now is to lay out what you think is an

agreement. There is another thing to get a partner or someone to sign on to

the provisions you laid out. I can lay out whatever I want to. There are a

number of things I'd like to lay out to the Members opposite. They might

sign on to that as well.

For

us to automatically assume or negotiate any agreement in the public right

now but I will tell you this, we are committed to working with the federal

Labrador and we are committed to getting what benefit we can from the

the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Not so they can stand

up in the House of Assembly and talk about things they could not deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike Bills 9 and 10, which we've been discussing in Question Period, Bill

1 actually has been tabled in the House. We have many concerns about

government's proposed Appointments Commission, and for this reason we will

be advocating for changes to Bill 1. For instance, many government

appointees must swear an oath or make an affirmation to be impartial.

Will

the government consider an amendment to Bill 1 to require appointments

commissioners to swear an oath or make an affirmation to be impartial?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill

1, which has been mentioned as a signatory piece of legislation for this

administration just if I remember about Bill 1, for the former

administration it was a procurement bill that was tabled as Bill 1, which

was supposed to be their signatory piece of legislation. It died on the

Order Paper many years later, I would say.

Mr.

Speaker, we look forward to the debate on the Independent Appointments

Commission. We will certainly be entertaining as we would completely

expect that the Members opposite would come with ways to improve that bill.

If we see that during a good, robust debate there are ways to bring

improvements to any piece of legislation, of course we'd consider all those

things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the Premier for the answer and for acknowledging that government will

consider amendments during the course of debate. As a result of Bill 1,

three-quarters of government agencies, boards and commissions will bypass

this new Appointments Commission altogether. Instead, the Public Service

Commission will gather names and simply pass them along to ministers when

requested.

ask the Premier: How can you claim that this is anything other than smoke

and mirrors when the vast majority of your government's appointments will

bypass your new commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Members opposite should know all about appointments. They made many of them

in the past 10 or 12 years. They would know the magnitude of the work that

was done.

ever suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Commission in our

province could not put in place an independent process that would allow for

the best Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to seek appointments and to be

appointed for the expertise and the technical knowledge that they bring to

those important boards and commissions, I would say it is not the way that I

feel. We support that.

When

you look at the Independent Appointments Commission, they will be five

individuals from around our province. They will help Cabinet. The red book

and the election platform clearly outlined that there would be

recommendations. I can tell you there will be an activity report.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

That will be brought to

the floor of the House of Assembly and all Members will be proud of the

Independent Appointments Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

2015 budget projected that the province will receive income from equity in

Nalcor annually starting in 2025. Since then, there has been another major

cost overrun in the Muskrat Falls Project requiring hundreds of millions of

dollars in additional equity from the province.

ask the Premier: What is the current projection for when the province will

receive return on equity from Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite has been a part of a lot of debates in this House of

Assembly as it relates to any investment or any return that the people of

our province would get from investments in Muskrat Falls right now.

you know, there's currently an EY review that is undergoing with the project

itself. The annual general meeting of Nalcor will happen now within the next

few days. So right now, when we get return, when the dividends will be paid

back to the province and to Newfoundland and Labrador, that will be

determined by the future successes of companies and agencies right now

according to this particular case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

people of the province who are footing the bill need to know now where their

investment stands.

ask the Premier: In openness and accountability, would he table an

up-to-date version of the graph entitled Nalcor Energy Equity Investments

and Payback on page 33 of the 2015 budget speech, a document which should

inform his budget coming up?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

information from many boards and agencies that will inform the budget-making

process for 2016-2017 and forecasting beyond will include, as did the update

that we presented to the people of the province on December 22 you could

clearly see there, I say to the Member opposite, on December 22, when that

update was given, there was actually a chart that was clearly outlining then

what the forecasted requirements would be for Nalcor over the next three

years and beyond.

That's the chart, and that chart will be updated as we get more and more

information that is essential as we form the budget for 2016-2017 and

beyond. I agree with the Member there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, we have the

highest percentage of seniors on OAS and GIS in the country. Many are

widowed or single women who raised families and did not have paid work. Once

rent, heat and light, phone and cable are paid there's often less than $200

left over for food, transportation and other essentials per month. They can

barely survive.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: By what percentage will electricity rates

increase once Muskrat Falls is online?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

the Member opposite knows, there are many different things that factor into

and feed into the equation, primarily driven through work through the PUB,

in determining what electricity rates would be in our province.

Like

the Member opposite, we, too, understand that we have many people in our

province right now many low income, particularly widows and so on, many of

our seniors right now, they do struggle. It is not lost on us with an

understanding of knowing that electricity rates play an important part.

will do what we can to make sure that those with lower incomes, that

government is there to actually support them, but to determine today, in

2016, what the electricity rates will be once Muskrat Falls is completed,

that is something that cannot be determined today. What I will tell you is

this government will do whatever we have to, to make sure that we get this

project back on track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: What is she going to do to assist those seniors and others who

will be unable to afford this increase? Concretely, what will they do?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will be lots of programs with better management and better planning

for the future of our province. We're in a very difficult situation right

now because we saw an administration that really did not plan for the

current situation that we're into.

One

commitment, however, that we have made, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the

sale of surplus power, the sale of excess power that would not be used

within our province, is that we would use that power to offset rates for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre for a very quick question.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Does she know how many people currently are not able to pay their

power bills or are in current arrears on their power bills?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I would not know how many people in this province cannot afford to pay

their power bills or pay their telephone bills or pay whatever bills they

would have. In all fairness, I would say that if we find people or if

there's anyone who actually I've seen in many, many cases working as an

MHA, where we would get calls to help constituents, as I'm sure the Member

opposite.

she has someone right now if she thinks there's a global list that, as a

government, we need to be monitoring the payment of bills by individuals in

our province in some global sense without those people coming to me, Mr.

Speaker, I respect the privacy of people more than that. If that information

is available and she has that, indeed it is incumbent upon her and others to

share that information with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question

Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

And

further, I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall move that the House

not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

wish to table the following private Member's motion:

IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of the United

Kingdom to facilitate the repatriation of the remains of Demasduit and

Nonosbawsut to Canada so that they may be laid to rest with dignity.

This

is seconded by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay East Bell

Island.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant

to Standing Order 63, the private Member's resolution just entered by the

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune is the one we'll debate tomorrow or

Wednesday, sorry.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly

sheweth:

Junior High school and send students to a distant school; and

WHEREAS the board has arbitrarily and without consultation reduced the Holy

Cross catchment area and students will have to be bused to a far more

distant school; and

WHEREAS Holy Cross is an important neighbourhood school with programs,

community partnerships and extracurricular activities designed to meet the

particular needs of the inner city students who attend it; and

WHEREAS the school board trustees are an appointed body and no longer

accountable to the people who elected them;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray can call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that Holy Cross Junior High

school remains open and to immediately arrange for a democratically elected

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy once again to stand in this House to talk about this

issue. As we know, education is so crucial in our province. I find it quite

interesting

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker is having difficulty hearing the Member that's recognized.

The

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

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

pulled out the Premier's mandate letter to the Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development. In this letter it is stated: It is my

intention to ensure policy decisions in government are informed by research,

evidence, and evaluation so that citizens can understand how and why

decisions are made.

Well, currently what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is that this decision

will be made by unelected, appointed school board trustees who will have a

secret vote. They will not be revealing who voted and how. This is not

openness and accountability, nor is this current board of trustees

accountable to the people of St. John's. They were not elected for this

particular term.

So,

Mr. Speaker, it's baffling as to why the minister, who was so outraged that

there is an appointed school board, that he is not halting this process

until there are duly elected trustees to make this decision.

also says in the mandate letter, the goal is to advance educational

opportunities and outcomes. Mr. Speaker, we know that 38 per cent of the

children who attend Holy Cross Junior High have exceptionalities. That means

38 per cent of children who need extra help. They may not get that in their

new school.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

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 the Terra Nova trestle is an indispensable link in the Newfoundland

T'Railway Provincial Park;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to give priority to repairing the Terra

Nova trestle when allocating infrastructure funding this year.

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, the previous government committed to repairing the decking on this

trestle, but when the engineers went out to do the repair the abutments were

in bad shape. So basically they had to stop the re-decking and more work was

required. We have cabins on the other side of this trestle that are going

through the river, which is creating a danger. We have tourists who use the

T'Railway. Right now you have a barrier set up there it stops and then you

have to travel back a fair distance to get back on the main trail.

It's

a safety concern. Livyers use it, cabin owners, and tourists and locals. So,

I respectfully ask for immediate attention to be given to this very serious

issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS greater food security ought to be a priority for Newfoundland and

Labrador;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to set targets for improving the food

security of Newfoundland and Labrador by promoting the growing in this

province of more of the food we consume.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador imports 90 per cent of its produce, which

means Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aren't surviving on their own without

outside help from national and international agricultural industries. This

should be a cause for concern for all of us. We do rely heavily on outside

food sources and we need to do more to ensure that our families and

communities do have access to fresh and nutritious foods.

know that for many families the cost of purchasing healthy foods is a real

struggle. There is too much of a reliance on processed foods and fast foods.

That has something to do with the rising costs of imported foods like fruits

and produce.

The

current value of the Canadian dollar has also impacted the cost of

nutritious foods. This is a complex issue. There is a lot of work to be

done. We want to work with government to make sure that we're doing

everything we can to tackle food security in this province.

have lots of health issues in this province. We've heard the government talk

about proactive measures, as I mentioned before. We have to be proactive

when it comes to tackling food security.

would encourage government, once again, to put into place a local

farm-to-table approach, working with our agrifoods industry and hopefully,

ultimately, that will reduce our reliance on imported foods and fatty fast

foods as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The

Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have an interest in

participating in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous

Women and Girls;

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

schedule both preparatory consultations and inquiry sessions in communities

in Newfoundland and Labrador in which grieving Aboriginal families live.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, it's certainly an honour for me to rise in this House today to

bring forth this petition a second time, and I will continue to bring forth

this petition on behalf of the people until we actually see some concrete

action.

This

is Aboriginal Peoples Week, as has been discussed in the House already

today, and I call upon our government to stand strong and united in

demanding that the Aboriginal people and communities of our fine province

are included in both the preparatory and inquiry sessions, Mr. Speaker,

because the preparatory sessions will outline and define the scope of the

inquiry that will take place. It's very important that the voices of the

people in communities be heard.

Yes,

we acknowledge there were some provision for certain people to travel; we

want the voices of every person who wants to be heard to actually have that

opportunity. It's only fair and it's something they deserve.

Many

of Canada's indigenous peoples live in rural communities, and for us here in

Newfoundland ours are particularly remote, and the travel, to be honest, is

prohibitive. The expensive travel is prohibitive. So many voices will not be

heard unless the inquiry and the people involved with the inquiry and the

officials actually travel directly to these communities where the people

live. The people of these rural communities will surely tell you this and

explain why, if they are given the opportunity to be heard in their

communities during the inquiry's development phase.

Mr.

Speaker, our leader has written to Carolyn Bennett, who is the federal

Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, expressing disappointment on

this matter. As the critic for Women's Policy and an MHA who represents many

Aboriginal constituents, I express my deep disappointment as well and urge

this provincial government to call on Ottawa to include Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Our

people are just as important as every other Canadian, and it is high time

that Upper Canada starts treating us with the respect we deserve. It was

touted that a federal-provincial government will yield results with

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

a close working

relationship

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

and we're hoping to see

that delivered, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member's time is

expired.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I

refer to the Order Paper. I call for second reading, Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 1,

An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments

Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments, be

now read a second time.

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

is indeed an honour to stand in this House and speak to Bill 1,

An Act to

Establish an Independent Appointments Commissions and to Require a

Merit-Based Process for Various Appointments. A great lead-in to what I

would have hoped would have been a great bill. It's very encompassing. It

has a lot of components to it, Mr. Speaker, and gave a lot of us some hope

and acknowledgement that there was a need.

There's no false expectation here. There was a need to improve the process

we use in this province to appoint people to various boards and commissions

in this province, Mr. Speaker. Nobody disagrees with that. That wasn't our

disagreement.

Mr.

Speaker, I look at this bill as the trilogy of the Liberal administration on

its first bill. I say that because as you know how trilogies work, they're

all about, the first one is to grab you, to give you a concept of exactly

what this bill would all be about. The trilogy there was about the red book.

the red book they had me too. They had me convinced this was going to be a

good piece of legislation. It could be something that I could look at and

support, that I would think would be in the best interests of the people of

this province, Mr. Speaker. I was sold. I was intrigued. When the Liberals

formed the government I was saying, now, show me the next phase.

The

second part of their trilogy was the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. In their

Throne Speech, they came around with they were going to be open. They were

going to look at a transparent and open government. That was fine and that

was part of it. We respect that. As a matter of fact, we're an

administration that started that process.

hon. Member here for Mount Pearl North was the minister responsible for open

and engaging government. Mr. Speaker, we want to do it, so if the Liberal

administration is going to take it and add to it, we welcome that, support

it, would even publicly applaud it; and still will, if they go on the right

path and put in place exactly what they stood for and what they say is in

the best interests of the people of this province. I have no qualms in

supporting that.

There's no doubt we'll have some amendments here. We'll have some open

debate. I'm looking forward to that. I'm hoping at the end of it we come to

a consensus that works for the people of this province. Indeed, if that's

the case I will have no qualms in standing with all my colleagues in this

House of Assembly and supporting this bill.

Right now as the bill stands, I've got some challenges. I know my colleagues

have some challenges around what needs to be put in place. So we'll have

that debate. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's here. I look forward to the

rebuttal that we'll have from the government side and the open debate. Maybe

there's clarification. Maybe it's lost in the

interpretation, and that's

fine.

Mr.

Speaker, the third part of the trilogy is the actual act itself. The act

itself talks about an open, transparent and administrative system that is

arm's-length from government. I have some real challenges in being able to

believe that. Again, you had me at the first stage. I was engaged. I'm

thinking you've got a good story here; I want to watch it. I can't wait to

see the second version of it.

The

second version came with the Throne Speech, all about transparency and

openness. Done again, I'm in. Take me to where you want to go with that.

I'll support it, but I saw no evidence of what was going to happen there,

Mr. Speaker.

got to the bill itself. I got to look at the meat of the bill and got very

disappointed about how many entities are not included in this process, Mr.

Speaker. How many agencies there particularly those that have a number of

appointees would still have total control given to the minister of that

line department. The Public Service Commission would just be an entity who

would just take resumes and lay them in particular piles to say, yes, you

have the minimum qualifications.

Now

the minister can take them and he or she can still decide who they want to

put on those particular boards. Not that they are necessarily the best

individual, or the most qualified or the most experienced. It's all part and

parcel of that process, Mr. Speaker.

had some concerns around that. I had some concerns around the first stage of

openness and the commission itself, how the commission itself was going to

be appointed, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of challenges around that. If you

really want to say you're open and transparent and you want to take the

politics out of government, have an open process where people can apply to

be these commissioners and look at their backgrounds. It makes no difference

if they're political partisans, have that open. Do it. If you want to really

be a groundbreaking administration, there's an opportunity to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER:

You could handle the file.

MR. BRAZIL:

Very much so.

why not have that opportunity. We'd encourage that. We think it would be in

the best interest of the people of this province. No doubt, the people in

this province would respect it and take that to the next level. So that's

what we're looking at. That's one of the concerns that I have.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I can't hear, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There are a number of private conversations going on in the Chamber. I'm

having some difficulty hearing the Member that's recognized.

welcome Members to conduct their business, but if you're going to do so at a

volume that disrupts debate, I ask you to take your conversations outside.

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

want to continue going through the piece of legislation that's being put

forward, Mr. Speaker. Again, it's a great concept. I won't argue that and

the Member noting that it's a great bill. It's a great concept. I don't

argue that. As a matter of fact, it can become a great bill.

I'm

looking forward to the amendments we'll put forward and the debate, and

hopefully a decision and a consensus that this will become a historic bill

for the people of this province. I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking

forward to that debate. I know the Members opposite would be open to having

that debate. If we bring in a concept they think makes sense and enhances

the bill, it doesn't take away from the particulars of what the intent was

but enhances it, they would support that. I'm looking forward to that, Mr.

Speaker.

want to talk about the real gist. The people need to know exactly what is

written right now in this bill. That it doesn't go far enough to really

promote what Bill 1 and what its whole intent as we understood it and what

we would support gets to that level. That's particularly around having

entities taking the politics out of either having qualified members of the

civil service doing a full assessment and making recommendations based on a

principle of the type of skill set that's needed and the position they're

going to be engaged in, and having it open to every individual in this

province who has that particular skill set, not a particular partisan.

All

the entities, regardless if it's the higher remunerated ones or if it's the

lower remunerated ones, it's about putting the people who are best

qualified. It's about what the bill's intent was, from my understanding, is

giving the people of this province an opportunity to be part and parcel of a

non-political, non-partisan process.

Bill

1, a great opportunity to be a very important bill and probably one of your

milestones as an administration, but to make that and to have it stand and

have people buy into that, you have to make sure you cover all your bases.

We're suggesting some of the things relevant to that.

Some

of those things we're going to be talking about are that all entities would

be included in the process that takes politics out of it. That we open it up

to all residents of this province who could fulfill the needs of the people

in this province by offering their skill set, by putting that forward and

eliminating some of the challenges we have there and not having the secrecy,

because there's still a full momentum here of secrecy. It's all still held

to the fact that Cabinet gets to decide.

In a

lot of cases line department ministers get to decide on particular boards,

but then when we get to a different level, a different tier, the Cabinet

has. Cabinet doesn't even acknowledge who the nominees are and exactly what

their skill set would be. We will never know who was put forward.

applaud the fact that there will be a process put in place. That there's a

level there of the bureaucracy, very talented, very competent people that we

have in our bureaucracy here in different entities, particularly around the

Public Service Commission who could assess the skill sets that are needed

and could find a way to make sure there's an attachment to a particular need

with a particular skill, regardless of the geographics. Maybe you assess

part of the evaluation on your geographic needs. That would be fine. Leave

that to the bureaucrats who on a daily basis do very diligent work in

identifying exactly what the needs of the people are in this province and

running our programs and our services.

Don't forget, the members on these boards are the people who are going to

help guide the billions of dollars that we spend to ensure people have

services in this province. To do that, would you not want to have the best

skill set? Would you not want to ensure that the people who got there didn't

get there because of their political connection or the donation they made to

a political party or their friendship or any of this? This would solely be

about an individual skill set being attached and connected to a particular

need that we would have in this province to address a particular set of

programs or services or issues. It makes sense. It's easy to sell. It's easy

to put in place, but not as it stands under the process of Bill 1 right now,

Mr. Speaker.

can't be sold to the people. It's definitely not sold to our party, but

we're open. We're very open to being engaged, to co-operate, to have an open

dialogue and hopefully come up to a consensus that's workable and liveable

by everybody here so at the end of the day, two years down the road, this is

your signature bill. Twenty years down the road people will look back at it

and say this bill took the politics out of appointments. It ensured that the

best people got to do the best job for the people in this province. The

money that we invested, you knew you were going to get your best return on

it. Mr. Speaker, that's the simple process that we want to have that

discussion around.

want to also talk about some of the more important things as we get into

what this bill would be about, the definition of which one of these entities

doesn't fall in a particular tier and that. There's some question around

that, which ones are of higher need, based on what principle, based on what

policy. There needs to be an open discussion around that. There needs to be

an outside agency to come in and look at that, be it our own in-house civil

servants, be it another agency that has that skill set, to identify which

ones should be where.

you're going to live by that, justify it. I only ask for justification.

Justify why certain entities fall in one tier and can be willy-nilly decided

by the minister, while other entities have to go through a different

process. Fair enough. I say maybe there are rational reasons for that. Fair

enough. If it's because of the costing to do that, if it's because of the

amount of work they have to do, if it's because it's not a full-fledged

position, if it's because geographically they're regional boards, fair

enough. Explain all that. Outline all that. Give us the definition.

Give

us how you sat down and flushed this out and really looked at how this would

benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do that. Sell that. Sell

that to me. You'll get my vote. No doubt I think my colleagues are open

minded enough to do the same. That's what we asked.

do ask when we get up in debate and you've obviously got the minister

responsible here who will have a very vast knowledge of how they got to this

point. It's a very encompassing bill, one of the largest ones I've seen, a

lot of information being shared. That's appreciated. Obviously, it gives us

as much information about what we need to debate, but it also gives us some

clarification in certain areas.

There are a couple of vague, grey areas here, so let's get up and explain

those. Tell us what your rationale was behind the categories in different

areas. Tell us the rationale behind why the Public Service Commission could

allocate its stacks of resumes based on who they think are qualified, and

send them up to a minister who, in turn, still could just pick whoever. It

may be a friend. It may be an acquaintance. It may be a supporter. It may be

a neighbour. It may be the most legitimate person there, and I would hope

that would be the decision. But we can eliminate the expectation that there

might be a reason other than the best individual getting selected. Let's

take that out of it. That's the intent of the bill. Make it non-partisan,

non-political. The clich, take the politics out let's do that.

There's a way of doing that, by having that open dialogue, having another

review of exactly why these entities were put in place. If there's a

rational reason, please share it; I'm game. I'm open-minded enough to say,

yeah, okay, that makes sense. It is better we save and still protect the

people of the province here while I may not like it, there are certain

things you're going to vote for because at the end of the day you think it's

the better return for the people of the province. We'll have that dialogue.

When

we get to a point where you're saying and your testament is this will take

politics out of appointments, and then the first thing you say, oh, no, no,

all these entities, close to 100 entities, are exempt from them. We're just

going to ask the public service to put out a call; everybody sends in a

resume. They'll send up a list of I'm assuming everybody who's

qualified, which could be everybody and their dog in a lot of cases,

depending on what the position is, and the minister still gets to decide who

he or she likes for whatever reason.

You

would think and hope that it be based on the most qualified people and

that might end up being the end result, and I would hope it would be. But

the general public won't see it that way, and you'll always be scrutinized.

So you can take that scrutiny away right away by having an open process.

Your first part of that process is putting all entities under one umbrella

and then finding a commission or a structure that takes pure politics out of

it.

You

guys appointing those people at the beginning still doesn't take politics

out of the appointments because you're first going to be labelled as the

people you put there to design the process and put forward, particularly the

larger entities, the tier-one entities, are going to be people who are

connected to your party, who have a politically vested interest. That

defeats the intent of the bill.

we're asking and we're being sincere here, we'd like for this process to

be improved. I agree with it. I think it should have been done years ago. I

have no qualms in saying that, without a doubt, none whatsoever. What we're

saying is you've got an opportunity to do the right thing, but do it so it

lasts for the next generation and then beyond by having another assessment

on exactly where things fit. Making sure you can't be scrutinized not only

by the Opposition, that's our job. We're going to scrutinize every bill you

put forward, but you want things to work properly.

easy way to get something that works is to ensure the general public and the

media can't scrutinize what you're doing, because it's open and it's

transparent. You've started a concept of saying you want to be open and

transparent. Well, here's your signature bill; here's your best opportunity

to do that. Your best opportunity to show the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador what you stood for the in the election, and the people, through our

democratic process, elected you and gave you the right to govern and expect

you to live up to those expectations. You've started the process; now

complete it and do it right.

it so that at the end of the day, you can't be scrutinized. Do it so that at

the end of the day, we walk out of this House and we're happy in the

Opposition that this bill is something not only did we support because bills

have to go through the process there's an administrative, legislative

system that has to be followed, and we need to move things forward but

because at the end of the day, we're doing something that's a milestone for

this province and the people of this province.

ask, I encourage, and I've looked at them I could go through them

article

by article. We could go through which ones we're going to discuss and amend

and the whole general discussion, but I'm looking forward to when Members on

the other side, particularly those who drafted the bill and there's no

doubt there is a group of line ministers who worked very closely with

Executive Council to look at exactly what the intent is how you can

address some of the inadequacies that are in this bill and some of the

things you are going to be challenged on when it comes to the general public

questioning how this is any different than the previous process, other than

you have another committee, another layer of administrative thing. You have

another open call. There's another part of maybe even slowing the process in

some cases.

You

want it to be exactly what your intentions were: open, transparent and fair.

We encourage that; we support it. We want to be able to move it forward. But

we do want to ensure that everything covers exactly what you stood for and

what we would support. That every entity has to have the right people, the

most qualified people, to be able to do that job and ensure whatever service

that they're responsible for or whatever appeals hearing they're responsible

for, that they understand it and they can give the best decisions based on

the information they have.

think it is a simple concept to go forward. There's a lot of good, open

documentation about the agencies that exist here. There's a lot of good

about certain areas and how you would do certain things, but the underlining

challenges here are first around the appointment of your commission, your

overviewing commission, how that is not going to be perceived as being

politically oriented. The second is going to be about all these entities

that are exempt from that process, that still don't take the politics out of

appointments. You have a great opportunity to do it here great opportunity

to do that.

So I

look forward to, as this dialogue happens over the next number of days, how

we get into the point of understanding exactly your rationale for the

two-tiered system; your explanation as to why an appointed commission by

your government would not be perceived as being a political process, that

people who have a vested interest or a connection to a political party would

not, in the best interests of their own parties, suggest certain people

would be moved forward.

Take

that out of it. Take a process there where people could come in and then you

can't be labeled. Not that people would do that but, again, in politics, 99

per cent of what we do is about perception. I mean, the civil service help

drive what we do here so you know that the information we put forward is

accurate. The information we put forward, no doubt, is in the best interest.

It may not be what everybody likes, but it's always in the best interests of

the people here because it's based on the data we have, the evidence.

You're touting yourselves as an evidence-based administration; live up to

that. I look forward to it. I would applaud you. I have no qualms applauding

you guys when you show that. When you show that evidence, I'll be the first

one to clap and say: Good policy, good job, good program, we can support

that, without a doubt.

But

to do that, this has to be your signature; start off right away. Start off

where your commission is going to come through, how that's going to be

impartial; how people who are on that, regardless of their backgrounds, got

selected that it was fair, transparent

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

open and that everybody

in this province had an opportunity to be engaged and be part of that

process.

Once

we get to that point, we're in a good place. We can have a good, open

dialogue then. It won't be jabbing back and forth; it will be particularly

just about asking for clarification. I'm about clarification. You clarify

something in here that I've got a misunderstanding or I'm not clear on, then

I'll nod and go along with it. If there's something I still don't think is

right, that's where we'll challenge. We have that ability here as we sit,

stand and speak in this House about making amendments. Those amendments may

be amendments that you guys are comfortable with. They may be something that

you might say, yeah, that makes sense. We need to move this to this level.

you know what? At the end of the day, serving the people in the best way

possible and ensuring the fiscal challenges we have are addressed by the

best, experienced people we have great politicians, great ministers here,

great bureaucrats here, great Members on the Opposition to be able to

challenge that; but we also need to ensure the boards and agencies who are

going to direct the billions of dollars that go out in programs and services

are the best people we have, and are the best people because these are the

people who committed to being part of this process because they are open to

doing what they have to do.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is up.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

I want to thank you for

this and I look forward to speaking this again.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind the Member his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much,

Madam Speaker.

is my privilege and honour to speak to this very important bill today. I

think it is a hallmark piece of legislation that will be reflective of the

kind of government that this new Liberal government will be bringing

forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Because it does speak to

the skills-based competency, the level of integrity and the level of

openness and transparency that we would like to see in government.

listened intently to the hon. colleague opposite and I wondered if we were

reading the same bill because he asked about an open process. He talked

about even having read the red book from the previous election that

colleagues on this side of the House supported greatly. If he truly did read

that piece of documentation, he would have seen in that documentation clear

articulation of the principles by which we arrived at this bill. That is

around ensuring there is a level of competency, a level of integrity in the

process of appointing board members. Always in that particular document,

Madam Speaker, we spoke about the requirement to go to recommend it to go

to Cabinet because, of course, there has to be a process around this.

Madam Speaker, the bill itself requires appointments to agencies, boards,

commissions, as well as other select appointments to be subject to a

merit-based process. I think this is incredibly important to the people of

this province. We want to have the skill sets. I think board members on all

sides of the equation want to have the board members that we require; the

level of competence, the level of skill and knowledge on these boards of

directors and various organizations that make up the tier one.

want to clarify something for my hon. colleague. He questioned why tier one

and tier two. I want to make sure he understands, and I think it's

incredibly important to understand, that the Public Service Commission will

serve as a secretariat and will work with the respective departments to

develop a skill and credentials profile for each agency, board and

commission.

The

tier-one boards have to go through a specific process because, of course,

Madam Speaker, they are the larger, more sophisticated paid boards from the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. So the level of sophistication and

requirements has to be there. That's why tier one and tier two does reflect

on the level of importance, I guess, if I could use that word.

Madam Speaker, I stand in the House as an institute of corporate director,

an accredited director. Myself and the Minister of Finance have both been

through a pretty rigorous process by the Institute of Corporate Directors to

ensure that we have directors in companies across our country that have the

education, the skills, the knowledge, the background. We go through a

rigorous process of examination to ensure that we have the right

credentials. Both of us are accredited directors as part of that. So it

becomes very important to me personally it is very important to me

personally, and I know it's important to all my colleagues on this side of

the House and I'm hoping on the other side of the House, that we do have the

credentials, the skill sets and competencies required on these boards of

directors.

You

can appreciate in times past, Madam Speaker, and we've seen it even recently

with the former government, where appointments were appointed based on

something other than the requirements that may have been for that board of

directors something other than the requirements of that board of

directors.

You

can appreciate on a board of directors, Madam Speaker, on an agency or a

commission there will be specific skill sets depending on the board of

directors. That's why we have a process where the Public Service Commission

is going to have the secretariat; they're going to work with departments.

They're going to develop that skill and credentials profile for each agency,

board and commission. It's incredibly important to have the right mix around

the table so that, for example, you have people that have a financial

background, people that would have had perhaps information or interest in a

particular area.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member from across the House talked about having an

open process. We want to encourage residents across our province to play a

very vital role in the opportunity that ultimately transformed the

operations of government, quite frankly. We want to have equality and

diversity and having qualified people.

welcome the involvement and open the process to anyone in this province who

has an interest in a board, agency or commission who has the skill sets

required, who has the knowledge and who has the willingness to be involved.

We welcome to have their names as part of this process. They will be vetted

by the Public Service Commission. It will be an incredibly thorough process.

The names will be generated, and then of course those mix of skill sets

because it's not just identifying credible candidates and those with the

credentials, but it's also ensuring the right mix is there.

really want to take politics out of the equation. We really want to make

sure the people that sit around a board of directors are the right mix to

provide what is often called in the industry the tension required. The

ability for a board of directors to test management, the ability of a board

of directors to ensure that there is what I'm going to call some pressure,

some testing back to management to ensure the right decisions are being

made.

are going to have an Independent Appointments Commission who will be robust

in those efforts, who will take the names submitted, who will look at the

skill sets required around the board of directors and who will bring forward

three names for review three names for each position. I think, Madam

Speaker, it is incredibly important to have a number of people's names

brought forward because you're looking for the right blend and mix of people

around a board of director's table. We want to ensure the skill sets around

the table actually lend to positive outcomes and ensuring we have a robust

discussion at the board table.

hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, will know, who sat on a number of

boards I've sat on a number of boards of directors. I'm sure many of my

colleagues on this side of the House and I'm sure many of my colleagues on

the other side of the House have sat around board tables and have always

noted that if we only had somebody with finance experience or lending

experience or the different types of skill sets that a board of directors

should require. I think it's vitally important to the people of this

province they get the best people, the best mix of skills and abilities

around a board table to make the right decisions on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We're listening with intent to some of the issues of clarity you wish to

have, or listening with intent to some of the suggestions you may have.

We're listening with intent to some of your recommendations for change. We

want to ensure this is the best piece of legislation to ensure we have the

best quality of people around a board table, to ensure we have the most

robust process in checking skill sets and credentials, and allowing the

process to be open, and allowing people to bring their ideas forward on how

they may be able to contribute to a board, a commission or an agency.

Mr.

Speaker Madam Speaker, my apologies. Madam Speaker, that brings me to

another point. We want to make sure we have diversity around a board table

as well. We want to make sure we are reflective of our society. We want to

ensure we are encouraging, for example, women to be involved in boards of

directors. We want to ensure the process is open to allow people of

different ethnicities, people of different cultures, people of different

walks of life, to be able to bring their skill sets to the table.

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, I

believe. I think it is supported, I know, by many, many people. I think the

Institute of Corporate Directors will be pleased to know we are, as a

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, stepping up to ensure we have this

kind of rigorous process around getting the right mix of skill sets around

the table.

Madam Speaker, as I said previously, I want to encourage people to put their

names forward. We want to encourage people. We want to ensure the Public

Service Commission has a great number of people to choose from in bringing

forward that good mix of people around our board tables.

Madam Speaker, I read with interest a very important report called the

Review of the Governance Framework for Canada's Crown Corporations. I don't

know if my hon. colleagues have had an opportunity to review this report. It

was a report to Parliament under the auspices of the Treasury Board of

Canada: Review of the Governance Framework for Canada's Crown Corporations

Meeting the Expectations of Canadians.

very important document, I thought. Because I have such an interest of

governance, of course, I read the entire document. In the document it talks

about having this kind of independence, of ensuring that you bring the right

mix of people around the table, of ensuring that you take kind of the

politics out of choosing somebody at the board.

lot of times in boards of directors and this is not just in government but

across the board, where you bring on your friends or your colleagues, people

that you know. People you know will do a good job, but people that you know.

Now we're taking a step back from that and saying: Well, what skill sets do

we need? What life experiences do we need? What kinds of diversity do we

need to see around our board table?

think it's remarkable. I can table this, if so wished. It's available on the

website, but it is available to you and I would be happy to table this

report. I will get you a fresh copy because my copy is rather marked up and

dog-eared because I've been through it so much.

Madam Speaker, I think it's important and I want to ask my colleagues across

the House to really consider supporting this. I think it is a great piece of

legislation. I think it's going to be a hallmark, as I said earlier, of this

government of really being open, transparent, accountable, ensuring that we

have the kind of level of scrutiny and the level of commitment and the level

of integrity to process for our boards, for our agencies and for our

commissions.

Madam Speaker, I can't say enough about how I feel about this legislation. I

think that it's very well thought through but, again, open to suggestions,

if that is warranted, but we want to make sure we are rigorous in our

process.

The

Independent Appointments Commission will be served by the Public Service

Commission, which again is a layer of autonomy and independence, of

professionalism feeding the Independent Appointments Commission. Ensuring

that the Independent Appointments Commission can consider the mix of people

and then, of course, bringing three names to Cabinet to ensure that we,

again, have those eyes on making sure we have the right person on the boards

of directors.

Madam Speaker, the board of directors of any organization has a fiduciary

responsibility to ensure they are meeting the mandate of the organization,

and they have a responsibility to ensure financial oversight. They have a

responsibility to make sure the mandate is being considered, ensuring the

process is being and they give that level of I'm going to call it

scrutiny and oversight to the management.

want to make sure the people that are serving on the organizations have been

thoroughly reviewed and vetted to have the skills they require to be able to

do that. I think it would serve this province well to have people being able

to serve in that function. They do not serve at the whim or will of a

government; they serve because they have the skills, the abilities, the

competencies and the right skill mix that is required by a government.

Madam Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to consider this well, and to

consider well the intent of this bill. I think the intent of this bill is

pure in its will, in its want, in its desire to ensure the agencies, the

Crown corporations, the boards of government that serve the people of this

province, that serve sometimes as volunteers sometimes they might get a

small stipend, but they do serve the people of this province when they sit

on these agencies, boards and commissions.

is pure in its intent to make sure the right people are around that board

table. I thank the people that have been there in the past. Madam Speaker,

because we're always forward thinking and talking about the next process,

but we have a lot of people serving the people of this province now on

boards and agencies and commissions and their hard work and efforts have

always been appreciated. I think that's important to recognize and say as

well. This is not about whether we have the right mix now; it's whether we

have the right mix going forward.

want to make sure we appreciate I like to think is a good word, and I

think all my colleagues would give much appreciation to the people that do

serve today, and hopefully will serve tomorrow, once we've been through this

rather rigorous process of making sure we've considered who sits around this

table, what skill sets are required.

full skills matrix my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, will know

this from boards she's sat on, and I'm sure others who've sat on boards of

directors would have looked at skills matrixes and said: What's important to

this board? As I said earlier, do we need somebody with financial skills? Do

we need somebody who understands the role of this particular board or

agency? Do we need somebody who has public relations skills? What we're

doing is looking at that and looking at the skills around that board table.

urge my colleagues to consider that. I think there are several elements to

really consider. This comes from the report that I referenced earlier:

Review of the Governance Framework for Canada's Crown Corporations. It talks

about several elements required for a sound, corporate governance system:

clarity of objectives and expectations; clear lines of accountability;

transparency in the application of and compliance with rules; and a culture

based on an ethical foundation.

think that we all want to get to the point, Madam Speaker, where that skills

matrix, where we want to make sure that we have the people around the board

table that meet the requirements of the organization, that understand the

transparency and accountability frameworks, and can move the boards,

agencies and commissions to the next level.

know the Institute of Corporate Directors, Madam Speaker, is running a

session here next week, I believe, on Crown corporation governance. They're

doing a piece of work around that to ensure that they are offering the

education requirements, the education to assist boards with their ongoing

education. But they are also offering the Institute of Corporate Directors

program here I think beginning Minister of Finance this fall.

had to take the course in Toronto. I think the Minister of Finance took the

course in Halifax. Now, thankfully, the Institute of Corporate Directors are

going to bring that program here to Newfoundland and Labrador, run with the

University of Toronto and Memorial University. I urge and encourage my

colleagues to take the program. It is thorough; it is challenging, but it is

also very rewarding.

You

learn a lot about the requirements of various boards of directors, public

boards, private boards, ones that are on the stock exchange and ones that

are Crown corporations. It runs through, but it also runs through all the

different aspects that a thorough and knowledgeable board of director can

give to an organization; everything from compensation to how to do the right

hiring for the organization, how to ensure that the

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Technology risks.

MS. COADY:

The technology risks,

looking at the whole risk matrix thank you very much of the

organization, the profiles of that organization. It gives you, as a

potential board of director, some great knowledge, some great learnings that

you could take back to the board. I thought it was very thorough. I

understand the Minister of Finance also thought it was quite good.

I'm

proud to be an Institute of Corporate Directors director. I know my hon.

colleague is as well. I think it brings an awful lot to the boards of the

institute sorry, of the boards to the Crown corporations, agencies and

boards of government.

So I

encourage my colleagues to please give this thorough analysis and thought.

Your support would be important to ensure we have the right skill mixes and

the right competencies around those boards. I know everybody here would want

to do that. I know that we want to ensure integrity in the process.

thank you for the opportunity to speak very passionately and strongly to

this bill.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind the Member her time has expired.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member

for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much,

Madam Speaker.

I'm

very happy again to stand and to speak, however, for the first time on Bill

1. Madam Speaker, that has such a lovely ring to it.

would like to say this bill is perhaps it's not about taking the politics

out of appointments, because really all the work that's being done by many

of these boards and commissions are about politics. It's about how we live

our lives together. It's about how we manage our resources.

Perhaps it's best said that this is about taking the partisanship out of

appointments, not specifically the politics, but the partisanship. I fully

can support this bill; however, I'd like to focus my comments on one area in

particular, and that is the issue of inclusivity and diversity.

Madam Speaker, if I could draw the attention of the Members of the House to

the lovely portraits that surround our gallery right here. There's one thing

in common: every single portrait is of a white man. That's true.

Also, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the makeup of our House of

Assembly. Out of 40 representatives, we have nine women, which is less than

23 per cent. That's the reality we are living with right now, Madam Speaker.

I'd

also like to go through a list. This may be tedious, but it may not be as

tedious as having to constantly raise this issue. I find it tedious as a

woman, as a progressive woman, to constantly have to raise the issue of:

Where are the women? But also not just where are the women who else is not

at the table? I believe, Madam Speaker, that is one of the key issues that

is missed, that is not addressed in this legislation. There is no policy for

a gender lens. There is no policy for any kind of diversity lens. I believe

that's what this bill must include. We must have an actionable policy on

diversity.

you would please bear with me, this is a tedious exercise but I'd like to

take us through it a little bit. I would like to list some of the agencies

and boards that have appointments of chairs and CEOs. I'm not talking about

other members of the boards or the agencies, but specifically the chairs and

the CEOs.

Marble Mountain Development Corporation, chaired by a man; the Public

Service Pension Plan Corporation, that's not available right now;

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act , a man;

Auditor General Act , a man. I'd

also like to thank these folks for the incredible work they're doing; very

competent, very knowledgeable, doing great work on behalf of the people of

the province. I'd like to thank those who serve on our boards and our

commissions and our agencies. It's very important work. It is about the

politics, about how we live our lives together, how we share and manage our

resources.

The

Business Investment Corporation, a man; the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act , a man;

Centre for Health Information Act ,

a man; Child and Youth Advocate Act ,

a woman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you. She's working

very hard and doing a great job.

The

Citizens' Representative Act , a

man; the College Act , a woman; the

Elections Act, a man; the

Emergency 911 Act , the chair is a

man; the Environmental Protection Act

and the waste management regulations, a man; the

Energy Corporation Act , the chair, a man; the

House of Assembly Act , a man. I could go on and on and on.

Madam Speaker, I am aware of how tedious this is, but it's not as tedious as

having to constantly raise it and draw attention to it. It's not as tedious

as having to constantly lobby and push to make sure that we have diversity

and that there is an absolute, undeniable, measurable policy of inclusivity

in all the work we do.

I'm

not going to continue on with that, but the final numbers in terms of CEOs

and chairs are 30 men and 11 women as it stands today. That's about 35 per

cent. I'd like to remind us that that happens just by chance, not by any

policy. I believe, Madam Speaker, that's what we do need in our legislation.

We need a commitment to a diversity policy. What this is about is we must

constantly ask the question, who is not at the table, because it makes a

difference.

Now

my colleague from St. John's East Quidi Vidi was at the technical briefing

for this bill. When she asked the Public Service Commission representatives

who did a great briefing on the bill, because they said it was a

merit-based process that they would be using. She said, what about a gender

lens? They said no, no, no, this is about merit.

Well, we have to look at, what does that mean? What does merit mean? What do

qualifications mean? When we're looking at the issue of diversity, again, we

must constantly ask: Who is not at the table? What perspective, what

experience, what expertise is not at the table? It's not just about what you

may have learned in management school or what you may have learned in

communications. It's also about our lived experiences from which we live

them.

One

of the things when I invited the Members to take a look at every portrait

here in our House, again, every single portrait is of a white man. We cannot

change the past. We cannot change the past, but we certainly can shape the

future. That is what I'm asking government to consider today. We can't

change the past, but we can shape the future. I am asking them to commit to

a policy of inclusivity and diversity.

Now,

I know the current government's counterpart in Ottawa in December 2015, when

he guaranteed gender parity in his Cabinet, he was asked, why did he do

that? How could he do that? He said because it's 2015. Well, I'd like to say

at this point, Madam Speaker, that today is 2016. There is no longer any

reason not to have women at the table, First Nations indigenous people at

the table. We need differently abled people at the table.

Imagine the experience that could be brought to the table with people with

different experiences, lived experiences, when we look at some of our

commissions and agencies. We need people from the LGBTQ community. I truly

believe we also need people from a different socio-economic background. More

often than not, the people who are on these boards and commissions are

people with a higher level of formalized education, probably meaning, then,

with higher levels of income.

Madam Speaker, in fact, we need people with different lived experiences

because these boards and commissions are about politics. They are about how

we manage our resources, how we manage our community, how we manage our

laws. We do need to have these different experiences at the table.

not do so is a loss. To not have the inclusivity and to not have the

diversity at the table means that our decision making is impoverished. It

means that our management of our resources and how we live together as a

community is impoverished. It's like going through life with one hand over

your eye and only being able to see part of the equation.

believe, again, that when the Minister of Natural Resources gets up and says

we really want to hear input, we want to hear suggestions so that we can

make our legislation more robust I will be optimistic here and believe

that government means that. We can't leave it to chance. When we look at the

situation of the Cabinet table, there are three women out of 13 positions.

It's 2016. There's no longer any good excuse for that. I'm sure there are

women my colleagues across the aisle here who are very able and have the

skills that are needed at the Cabinet table.

Without government committing to an inclusivity lens, a policy of

inclusivity, we will yet again see the same thing happening again and again

and again. We have to constantly ask when we put together a table, who is

not at the table? Then, at times if the table is too small we have to make

the table bigger, because without doing so we are impoverished in our

decisions, in our deliberations and in our management.

Again, Madam Speaker, we cannot change the past but we can shape the future.

I believe because it's 2016, it is truly time to do the right thing and to

ensure that our First Nation's people, our indigenous people, women, members

of the LGBTQ community, people with different disabilities and abilities are

all represented at the table, that the people who represent our demographics

and our life experiences are at the tables where decisions are being made.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much,

Madam Speaker.

Again, it is indeed a privilege to get up here today and to represent the

beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

Madam Speaker, this is the first bill that the new government has brought to

the House of Assembly and it's a very important bill. It's a bill that I

think the people in the province were really looking forward to. It's a bill

that will set the stage for their governance in the next four years. It's

important that when you do things, you do things right.

believe in this bill. I believe we do have to well, as they say take the

politics out of appointments. I really do believe that. In saying that,

Madam Speaker, I'm not going to go back and do what other people you hear

people back and forth across the House say: oh, so and so, and so and so,

you appointed so and so. I'm sure that most people who were appointed over

the years were qualified people, good men and women who served on these

boards. I really want to thank people who did it because it takes a lot of

time and commitment to be able to do what they do.

have a lot of boards and agencies in government that requires a lot of

people to sit on them. Sometimes I believe it is difficult even getting

people to do some of the work that needs to be done, especially for the

boards that are non-paid. It's easy enough to say to a person, listen, we

want you to be on a board but we're not going to give you any money to do it

and you have to do all this time and effort. Unless they're really into

that, it's a difficult job to get somebody to do it.

really want to say thank you to the people over the years that have done it.

Basically, we look in Newfoundland and Labrador at volunteers; that's a real

sign of a volunteer, that a person is willing to do that and not get any

money to do it. It's very important, I think, that we recognize these

people.

This

piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, I agree with 100 per cent. I agree with

the legislation but I'd like to see it done in a proper way. I'd like to see

it done so that we do it if we're going to do this piece of legislation,

that we do it right the first time. It's very important that we do it right.

I'm

not judging anybody who goes on, like I said, any boards or any appointments

in the past. I respect them and I'm sure they're very qualified people, but

as the past election went on we looked at the promises that were made. I did

not read the red book. I never read it, to tell you the truth. I didn't read

the red book but I heard some of your promises. This was a promise where I

could agree with you. I could agree to take the politics out of

appointments. I agree with that but let's do it properly. Let's do it the

right way.

Now

I have to thank Executive Council and the Public Service Commission for

giving us a briefing on this bill. They did a great job. We went through it

line by line and everything else and it was a good explanation. I really

understand what they were trying to do. The concept of the bill is to make

sure that we get the proper people, qualified people and the best person,

whether it's male or female or whatever. I believe in the best person for

the job.

I'll

go back to my hon. Member who just spoke up here a little while ago. I had a

group of people in the House of Assembly just recently, a seniors group. The

very first thing, when they came into the House of Assembly, they said: What

are all the portraits across here? I said they are former Speakers of this

House. The very first thing they noticed, they said there was neither woman.

I agree with her. That's the very first thing people noticed when they came

in here. That's sad because we have some great women in this province and

I'm sure there would be no problem to have a female Speaker in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

But, do you know

what? Times change and we have to change with the times. Today we live in a

different society. We live in a society where people are more involved, and

more want to get involved. They really want to make sure things are done

properly. Again, this bill is a great bill but it needs to be done properly.

Now,

Madam Speaker, I'm just going to look at little parts of the bill that I

want to bring up today. This is called an Appointments Commission. So

Appointments Commission, I think it should be changed to a recommendation

because they don't appoint anybody. It's a committee of five that's going to

be set up and it looks at all the different applications they have from the

Public Service Commission and they select three. They make recommendations.

The recommendations they make to Cabinet and then Cabinet, politicians, have

the choice to pick one of those recommendations.

The

scary part of it all, that's okay if they can pick just one of the three and

we know the three and they get ranked, and that's who they pick, that

wouldn't be too bad, but that's not how this works. How it works is they'll

send three recommendations to Cabinet, but Cabinet can have another person

they have in mind that they want that job for.

Then

if they decide the three people that were recommended go to Cabinet, they

decide that, no, we're not going to accept these three people, we're going

to put our own in and no one will ever know, will ever know the three

people that were recommended for the job by this independent commission go

to Cabinet, but Cabinet says, no, hold on now; that's not the person we want

there.

you know what? The thing with a lot of these authorities and different

organizations, they have to work with Cabinet. And you do want a person that

can work with Cabinet in these appointments. If you're going to say you're

going to take the politics out of it, then take the politics out of it. You

cannot say we have an independent commission, and the independent commission

is going to recommend, not appoint now, there are no appointments in this

commission. They're going to recommend these three people are qualified for

the position, but then it goes to Cabinet and Cabinet can decide a separate

person. They don't need to accept now, I don't know if they will or not, I

really don't know, and then we'll never know.

How

is it taking the politics out of the appointments if we never know who was

selected, if it was the independent commission, were they the ones that

selected this person; or was it that Cabinet said, no, we don't want these

three people? No, they're not the ones for us; we want someone different.

We'll never know. That's the problem I got with this bill. The secrecy of

the bill is where I got the problem. I agree with the bill, 100 per cent. I

really want to see the best, qualified person get the job. The best,

qualified person should get the job.

MR. JOYCE:

John Ottenheimer

(inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

The Member for Bay of

Islands, I'll give you the opportunity to speak, too. John Ottenheimer is a

very fine man; I'd like to tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

He's a very fine man.

I know the man and he's a good man. I don't think you should be slandering

his name here like that; he's a good man.

Listen, I can go with names

MR. SPEAKER (Lane):

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I get a

point of privilege here.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker reminds

Members there is no point of privilege. I would ask the Member to have his

seat.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes

MR. JOYCE:

Point of privilege, not a

point of order. There is a big difference.

MR. SPEAKER:

Point of privilege, the

Speaker will hear the Member.

MR. JOYCE:

The Member

MR. K. PARSONS:

Oh, come on now. I

only have a bit of time (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE:

You can stop the clock;

we'll give you time.

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible) you get

up and speak.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

The Member opposite said

that I was slandering John Ottenheimer's name. That is absolutely not true.

I did not say one word about John Ottenheimer. I can't let it be on the

record and I ask that the Member withdraw the comments because I did not

slander John Ottenheimer's name. I can't let it stand on the record, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

I ask the Member to

withdraw that statement.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There is no point of privilege.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

My whole point, Mr.

Speaker, when I started off my speech here today is that this is an

appointments committee and we're looking for the best possible person. I'm

not going back to what happened in the '90s, in the '80s, in the '70s and in

the 2000s. I think this is a great piece of legislation. Moving forward, we

should make sure we do it properly. Moving forward, we should make sure that

the best people are selected.

problem with the piece of legislation is that what's happening here with

this legislation is that there is a secrecy

part involved. There's a part to

this legislation where people will never know who the person was that was

selected. They'll never know that the three people that were recommended

never got the job.

The

independent commission that we're working on and getting it all set up for,

they'll make a recommendation, but we'll never know if that's the person

that was selected we'll never know it. So how is that taking the politics

out of this appointment?

listened to the Minister of Natural Resources get up. She made some great

points today. She said how important it is of what we do, and how this needs

to be done and everything else. I agree. I agree 100 per cent, but just look

at what we're doing here.

believe, Mr. Speaker, what should be done in this, we should have an

all-party committee. I agree that an all-party committee should be set up so

that all parties have a right to say. The five people that are appointed to

this commission, we should all have a look at it and say they're great

people, non-partisan. Is that what you want? Is this what the intent of the

bill is?

why can't we do like we did when we got together with the fisheries, when we

got together with mental health and addictions? Last year we had an

all-party committee put in place. This is very important. This is what the

people of the province want. I know it's what