PDF Version

June 22, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 20

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Are the House Leaders ready?

S. CROCKER:

Yes, Sir.

SPEAKER:

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. This is the earliest possible

time to raise the point of privilege. It is my first opportunity to do so.

O'Brien and Bosc in the House of Commons

Procedure and Practice states that a “Member must satisfy the Speaker that

he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as

practicable after becoming aware of the situation.”

per our discussion, you agreed that this the earliest possible time. I have

given you notice and a copy of the point of privilege. This point of privilege

is being raised as there is new evidence from a Supreme Court decision in the

past few days, which is contrary to the findings of

The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018.

You

advised me that the point of privilege I raised in the last General Assembly

died on the Order Paper when the House of Assembly dissolved and that I would

have to file a new point of privilege, which I am doing so.

Due

to what I've mentioned above, there is also new evidence from the Supreme Court

of Newfoundland and Labrador on a recent decision which has implications with

the findings of The Joyce Report of

October 18, 2018.

point of privilege is concerning The Joyce

Report of October 18, 2018, presented to the Management Commission by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards and subsequently tabled in the House of

Assembly and voted on in this House of Assembly on November 6, 2018.

I n

our Members' Parliamentary Guide, May 2019, Parliamentary privilege is defined

as “the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively … and by

Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their

functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”

Privilege or peculiar rights can be divided into two

categories: Rights to the Members, individually and rights extended to the

House, collectively.

As Speaker Sauvé stated in a ruling on March 22, 1983:

An allegation of criminal or dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the

Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.

The

Joyce Report

of October 18, 2018, and the vote in this House of Assembly violated my rights

and affected my ability to carry out my duties effectively and damaged my

reputation. Bruce Chaulk – and I quote – “I think his attempts to influence the

Complainant's actions, as well as his response when she failed to affect his

desired outcome, were outside the “norm” of political interactions and were

below the standards expected of persons in their role within government.

Relationships between Members and government employees should be professional

and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of those

employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.

“I find that the conduct of MHA Joyce is a violation of

principle 10 of the Code of Conduct. His behaviour during the hiring process

fell below the standard expected of a member of the House of Assembly. I find

that the manner in which he addressed this issue was unprofessional and showed a

lack of mutual respect towards members of the public service by placing those

individuals in the middle of a process that is supposed to be politically

impartial. This type of conduct is not acceptable and must be discouraged.”

In The Joyce

Report of October 18, 2018, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards found

myself in violation of Principle 10, which states: “Relationships between

Members and government employees should be professional and based upon mutual

respect and should have regard to the duty of those employees to remain

politically impartial when carrying out their duties.” He classified the

complainant as a government employee, who was a Member of this Legislature which

is contrary to the act. This was intentional, malicious and an abuse of his

powers.

On November 5, 2018, when the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards was questioned in the House of Assembly, I questioned him

regarding Principle 10 and asked how I violated Principle 10 when the Speaker of

the House, Perry Trimper, stated in a letter November 2, 2018, to me that:

“Members of the House of Assembly are elected officials, they are not

employees.” There is no employee relationship between a Member and the Crown.

The Commissioner's reply was: “The only thing I would suggest is that

relationships between Members is certainly plural.”

This House of Assembly accepted this false report and

voted on it in the House of Assembly and damaged my reputation. It has to be

brought back to the House of Assembly for consideration.

There was a request by myself and former MHA Dale Kirby

to obtain a copy of the Rubin Thomlinson report, which found that there was no

bullying and harassment. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards refused us a

copy. Mr. Kirby appealed the decision to the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner.

During the investigation, less than three months after

The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018,

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards made a total contradictory statement

to the Privacy Commissioner pertaining to Principle 10. On page 3, paragraph 7

of the Privacy Commissioner's report it states: “… the Commissioner for the

Legislative Standards states that the Complainant is not an 'employee'….”

Paragraph 7 continues: “In support of this position, the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards provided this Office with an opinion from the Clerk of the

House of Assembly:

“ MHAs are not

considered employees. They are public office holders. ”

The Information and Privacy Commissioner in his report

on page 5 states: “While

section 41 is a mandatory exception to disclosure,

section 33 creates a mandatory right of access in the context of a workplace

investigation. However, based on the definition of a 'workplace investigation'

section 33(1)(

c) the conduct at issue must be that of an 'employee'. The

Commissioner for Legislative Standards and the Clerk of the House of Assembly

deny that a Member of the House of Assembly is an 'employee'. The language of

the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act supports the conclusion that a Member is

not an employee, with a distinction made between the two roles throughout that

Act, for example:

“ 55

(1) An

employee or a member who reasonably believes that he or she has information

that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed

may make a disclosure to his or her supervisor, the clerk, a member of the audit

committee chosen under paragraph 23(2)(b), or the investigator.

“ 62. Where a

supervisor, the speaker, the clerk or the investigator is of the opinion that it

is necessary to further the purposes of this Part, he or she may, in accordance

with the rules, arrange for legal advice to be provided to employees and

members involved in a process or proceeding under this Part.

“[12] Furthermore, the definition of 'employee' found

in the ATIPPA, 2015 is clear that an

employee performs services 'for the public body.'

“ 2. In this Act

(i)

'employee', in relation to a public body, includes a person retained under a

contract to perform services for the public body.

In this case, the person is a member elected by his

constituents to represent them. He does not perform services 'for' a public

body. His relationship is to the electorate, who 'hired' him through their

electoral process, and they determine his tenure of employment.”

Donovan Molloy, Information and Privacy Commissioner,

ruled on page 6, paragraph 15: “Further, a Member of the House of Assembly is

not an 'employee' and, accordingly,

section 33 of the

ATIPPA, 2015 does not apply to require that access be granted” as an

MHA.

Mr. Kirby appealed the decision through the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The decision of the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Justice Frances J. Knickle, page 32, paragraph 91: “ The

appellant is not an employee as understood in the common law .”

The House of Assembly Law Clerk, in a letter dated July

11, 2019, makes it clear that MHAs are not government employees. In her letter

she states: An MHA is not a government employee.

In a submission to Justice Osborne on November 27,

2020, for an access to information review, the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards stated: Members are not government employees. Signed, Bruce Chaulk,

Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

The people to date who contradicted the Commissioner's

finding of October 18, 2018, on Principle 10, that Members are not government

employees are as follows: the Commissioner's own testimony to the Privacy

Commissioner; his letters to Justice Osborne; the Supreme Court appeal with the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards supported this decision of the Privacy

Commissioner; the Clerk of the House of Assembly; the Law Clerk of the House of

Assembly; the Privacy Commissioner, Donovan Molloy; Supreme Court Justice

Knickle; and former Speaker Perry Trimper.

I am tabling all the documents, if possible, as clear

evidence that contradicts the findings in

The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, it's very disturbing that the Commissioner

for Legislative Standards presented a report to the Management Commissioner,

which by his own submissions, and many more, were false and this infringed upon

my right as a Member.

Mr. Speaker, the second point I produced that you

informed me of that died on the Order Paper and that I should resubmit is

interference by former Premier Dwight Ball, which questions the independence of

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

The Commissioner stated on many occasions that he was

an independent officer who completed the report without any interference.

Mr. Speaker, in

Hansard , the Commissioner for Legislative Standards stared on November 5,

2018 – I quote – “As a statutory officer, I have a solemn responsibility to

administer the law exactly the way specified in the law. In doing so, I am

expected to behave in a non-partisan manner.” I am expected to behave in a

non-partisan manner – that was his quote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these statements were absolutely false,

misleading and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards presented a report to

the House of Assembly that was not independent and have political interference

that resulted in the Commissioner for Legislative Standards misleading the House

of Assembly. On August 6, 2018, former Premier Dwight Ball informed me that

another report concerning former MHA Colin Holloway would be released on August

7, 2018.

We attended a funding announcement in the Harbour Main

District. That night on August 6, Mr. Ball called me and informed me that the

report would not be released, but reports about myself and former MHA Dale Kirby

would be released together in several weeks.

On August 23, at the beginning of the by-election for

Windsor Lake, when asked by reporters about the bullying and harassment report,

Mr. Ball stated and I quote: “There's no room for political interference in

those reports … I've not received any information from the commissioner, neither

have I went looking for any.”

Mr. Ball stated and I quote: “It's done with an

independent process that's been established by Chief Justice Green here.”

On November 5, 2018, in the House of Assembly in

Hansard , former Premier Ball stated:

“Somewhere along the line, of course, the processes had changed and Members made

a decision, which was certainly up to them and I certainly encourage and support

all of that, but Members took a different route to actually get the allegations

dealt with and investigated.

“So, that was my only involvement in all of this …”

Bruce Chaulk response “Yes, very much so.”

Mr. Speaker, Dwight

Ball and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards misled the House of Assembly

and there was political interference by Dwight Ball.

I was informed on

August 6, 2018, that both reports would be coming out together. Just over two

weeks later that occurred. One day after the by-election in Windsor Lake.

After writing

Dwight Ball on many occasions, which he refused to respond, if he was in contact

with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards during the process, I threatened

to release the names of those who were in contact with the Commissioner on his

behalf during the investigation. After public denials of no interference and in

the House of Assembly stating that he had not been in contact with the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, I received a letter from Dwight Ball on

May 31, 2019. I quote: “I can confirm there were limited occasions whereby my

office contacted the Office of the Commissioner

for

Legislative Standards.” I quote again, Mr. Speaker, from Dwight Ball, his own

signature: “I can confirm there were limited occasions whereby my office

contacted the Office of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.”

Dwight Ball and the Commissioner both denied any

involvement, and this was clearly misleading to the general public and to the

House of Assembly who voted on the reports against myself and Dale Kirby when

there was clearly political interference. Dwight Ball interfered with the

process and the independence of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards was

breached.

Mr. Speaker, I read from

Hansard , November 5, 2018, Mr. Lane: “… if you've said that there

was no bullying and harassment that has taken place, and therefore a breach of

the Code of Conduct, I can only assume that Rubin Thomlinson said the same

thing, there is no bullying and harassment.”

Mr. Chaulk: “Without getting into the report – without

getting into any of the reports and saying anything, but if someone goes through

the effort of hiring an investigator to investigate a particular situation, I

think the person would be a fool to overturn or dispute what the investigator is

telling them.”

Mr. Chaulk: “That's what those reports look like, and

that's what the report looked like when I received them from Rubin Thomlinson.

They looked exactly like that. Of course, I put a

section in the front which

deals with the chronology and the legislative authority and my executive

summary; but, for the most part, you're reading the Rubin Thomlinson report,”

where there was no bullying and harassment.

What changed from the Rubin Thomlinson report of no

bullying and harassment to filing a false report on this? Political interference

by Premier Dwight Ball: I can confirm that there were limited occasions whereby

my office contacted the Commissioner for Legislative Standards on May 31, 2019,

signed by Dwight Ball. These interactions where never disclosed, but publicly

Dwight Ball and the Commissioner denied any contact with each other.

I would like to point out also that the Commissioner

for Legislative Standards is also the ethics Commissioner for this House of

Assembly. My reputation was damaged by this political interference, secret

discussions and the tabling of the false reports of October 18, 2018. Mr.

Speaker, this is clearly a prima facie case where a Member's reputation was

damaged and the quickest and speediest remedy to bring this back to the House of

Assembly so a debate can occur with all the information presented.

On March 22, 1983, Madam Sauvé, in a ruling, stated on

a point of privilege: While it is before the court “I have therefore decided, in

spite of the reservations I have expressed, that this complaint should be given

precedence as a prima facie case of privilege in order to provide the Hon.

Member with the speediest possible route toward the re-establishment of his

reputation. I am prepared to entertain a motion to refer this matter to the

Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.”

Mr. Speaker, you have to decide if this is a prima

facie case. If my rights as a Member have been violated, you must bring it back

to the House for this House of Assembly to make their decision.

This ruling is precedence that does allow an issue

before the courts to get the speediest possible remedy to re-establish my

reputation, as Madam Sauvé stated. Any decision in this House is bound by

parliamentary privilege and it has no bearing on court decisions. Mr. Speaker,

if you make a decision that this is a prima facie case, I will bring a motion to

bring The Joyce Report of October 18,

2018 back to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Bosc and O'Brien states: “It is impossible

to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction,

interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute

prima facie cases of privilege.

However, some matters found to be prima

facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the

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

of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.”

I refer to page 141 in O'Brien and Bosc, where Members

include privileges before the House of Assembly are treated with the utmost

seriousness. As you outlined, there is a formal process to be followed, I

followed the process, notified the Speaker of my intentions to raise the point

of privilege at his earliest possible convenience.

Mr. Speaker, with the pleasure of the House and consent

of the House, I will table every document to prove everything I said here:

written correspondence by every person that I mentioned in this.

SPEAKER:

Are

there any other speakers to the point of privilege?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to make any big, long commentary on this

but as someone who was here at the time, I have to be honest, when all this came

down – I wasn't there. Some of us could have been here, I'm not sure. I wasn't

here when any of this allegedly took place, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am

very concerned on a couple of matters.

One thing I am very concerned about is the fact that

our Commissioner for Legislative Standards would state in this House of

Assembly, which he did – we tried to ask him questions. He wouldn't answer

hardly anything, anyway. I can remember trying to ask him questions and you'd

get non-answers. It reminded me of Question Period.

I would say this, though, that he has stated on the one

hand in this House of Assembly as part of the charge against our colleague here

that it was because it was between government employees. He said that; that's

there. Then he goes ahead in a couple of court proceedings – one with the

Privacy Commissioner and another one involving former colleague Dale Kirby – and

indicates that they're not government employees.

So there's either an issue of competence or there's an

issue of misleading this House of Assembly. Regardless of the report, regardless

of what went on or didn't go on in terms of

The Joyce Report , The Kirby

Report , the fact of the matter is that if the Commissioner – who is an

independent Officer of this House, who reports to this House. Now we have

another instance. We've been going through all the issues that went on with the

last provincial general election and a lot of questionable decisions. And now

this comes to light. I think that this House needs to take that matter very,

very seriously. I ask you to do so when you're considering, Mr. Speaker.

Whether or not you go forward with a review of

The Joyce Report or not, whether that

happens or not, I think that the matter concerning potential misleading of the

House by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – on a standalone basis, if

nothing else – needs to be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Any

further speakers?

If not, this House will recess to review the point of

privilege.

Recess

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I took some time to review the point of privilege;

however, I do need a little more time to review the full documents and I will be

making a ruling in very short order.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to, for the record of

Hansard and this House of Assembly,

indicate that I will be recusing myself from any deliberations, either in my

role as the Deputy Chair of Committees or as an MHA, as we work through this

matter, given I'm involved in an application with this gentleman before the

courts. I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also will be recusing myself from any deliberation on

the floor as it pertains to this matter, and I will stand by the October 18

report.

Thank you very much.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Topsail -

Paradise, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Placentia - St. Mary's, Humber - Bay of

Islands and Mount Pearl - Southlands.

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears summer has arrived, and many like-minded

individuals and groups from communities across the province have come together

to remove litter and work to keep our beautiful province clean.

May month was Community Clean-up Month for Topsail -

Paradise, and many groups and volunteers had taken the time out of their busy

lives to get outside and help the environment while cleaning up neighbourhoods,

school grounds, open spaces, trails and business locations.

Groups such as 1st Topsail Scouting and 1st Paradise

Scout Troop collected hundreds of pounds of garbage from Peter Barry Duff

Memorial Park. MUNHOPE collected five bags of garbage from Topsail Beach. And

the Town of CBS just recently held its 3-Hour Challenge this past weekend. Many

other groups and individuals of all ages have volunteered and participated in

community cleanups.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see such wonderful community

spirit from all groups and volunteers of all ages stepping forward to clean up

our beautiful neighbourhoods and communities. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank all of those who have participated.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This past Friday marked the launch of a public

fundraising campaign for the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Titled Every Moment Matters, this initiative will set out to raise the remaining

35 per cent of the estimated capital cost of $7.6 million to finally make this

dream become a reality.

The new design, unveiled Friday, will see 10

residential suites with private washrooms, along with accommodations for family

members to overnight. Other features include a children's play area, an outdoor

area beaming with nature and beauty and a place of spiritual reflection and

guidance for any and all faiths. The Lionel Kelland Hospice will offer quality

care for loved ones nearing their end of life journey and also offering support

to their families.

I ask all hon. Members to join me as we thank Board

Chair Mark Griffin and the other directors, the Presentation Sisters, the

community for their donations and support and special thank you to the Gift Team

chaired by Shelley Woolfrey. Remember, folks, Every Moment Matters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Colinet, St. Mary's Bay is different from most

Newfoundland outports; it looked to the woods instead of the ocean for its

existence. The Colinet Loggers Heritage Society was formed in 2017 to research, preserve and make available the

historic and cultural heritage of Colinet.

The society

acquired the former Our Lady of Grace church and recommissioned it as the Fergus

& Fred Linehan Heritage Centre. The building has been developed into a splendid

cultural arts centre that has hosted many of Newfoundland's finest performers.

The Heritage Society continues to collect artifacts and pictures from the town's

past and is working to display them.

The Colinet

Logger's Car Show is a major supporter. It has developed the basement of the

building into a car storage space. Concerts and dances are held throughout the

year. The society gratefully receives sponsorship from local business and it

applies for all provincial and federal funding available.

Potential future

projects include developing the grounds into a park-like area suitable for

performances, exploring the possibility of a summer theatre, installing walking

trails with storyboards and welcoming visitors to Colinet.

I ask everyone to

join me in congratulating

the Colinet Loggers Heritage Society on their

success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

JOYCE:

Today I'm pleased to recognize two individuals from my district who were

recently awarded Ronald McDonald House Helping HAND Awards.

Tammy Maillet of Meadows has been a valued member of

the McDonald's team in Corner Brook since 2013. She firmly believes in the

Ronald McDonald House Charities and doing her part to help make a difference for

the sick children and their families, especially families in Western

Newfoundland. Her commitment and dedication to the charities has been recognized

by her co-workers and this year Tammy is the recipient of the Champion

McDonald's Crew Helping HAND Award.

Cindy Wells of Irishtown has been a dedicated volunteer

for Ronald McDonald House and a Red Shoe Crew campaign leader since 2012. Cindy

has a personal connection to Ronald McDonald House and through her fundraising

initiatives and dedication, she has brought together her community every year in

support of the charity and has raised over $50,000 to date. In recognition of

her continued commitment, Cindy is the recipient of the Community Engagement

Volunteer Helping HAND Award.

I ask all Members to join with me in extending

congratulations to these two ladies and thank them for their continued

dedication to such a great cause.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House

to recognize several outstanding young people in my community. The Mount Pearl

31st Annual Focus on Youth Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the

great talent, athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very

amazing youth.

These individuals included: Mount Pearl Youth of the

Year, Liam Bavis; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Sara Parsons; Youth Athletes of

the Year, Megan Holden and Kalan Noonan; Youth Team of the Year, the O'Donel

High Senior Boys Volleyball Team; RNC Youth in Service Award winner, Sarah

Bertrand; S.T.E.M. Award winner, Russell Corbett; Performing Arts Recognition,

the cast and crew of O'Donel High School's

The Wedding Singer and The Valley ;

Performing Arts Individual Award winners, Julia Bryant and Rebecca-Ann Bartlett;

Visual Arts Award winners, Jade Hickey and Jordan Dawe; and Literary Arts Award

winner, Jai-Lynn Francis.

These amazing young people have already accomplished so

much and have fostered a wonderful sense of pride and optimism for the future of

my community.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating these

amazing young people on their accomplishments and wish them the very best in

their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to speak today about exciting initiatives

happening under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, specifically the Climate

Change Challenge Fund.

Recently, I joined my federal colleague, the Minister

of Natural Resources, to announce $8.1 million in support for 13 climate action

projects in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The provincial government contributed $3.3 million in

support of these initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel

efficiency and help communities across the province save on energy costs.

Some of the initiatives include the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation's Furnace Replacement Project for existing housing

units around the province and the Fisheries and Marine Institute's Fuel

Switching Project. Details on the remaining projects will be announced in the

coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, every single action we take to lower

greenhouse gas emissions matters.

By 2030, programs under this fund are anticipated to

deliver 830,000 tons of cumulative greenhouse gas reductions and 650 direct

person-years of employment. In addition to the projects under the Climate Change

Challenge Fund, the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund supports programs for

residential, provincial and industrial energy efficiency and electrification,

including converting buildings such as schools from oil heat to electric heat.

Through programs like the Low Carbon Economy Leadership

Fund, and our Climate Change Action Plan, we are working to not only reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, but to stimulate clean innovation and growth, and

build resilience to climate change impacts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Exploits.

FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

I join the minister in recognizing the initiatives that

fall under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund here in this province. The

world is changing, and due to the threat of climate change, collectively, we

must change.

In recognition of this, any reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions in this province are welcome news. These emission reductions are

important steps in the right direction, but we need to do more to combat climate

change.

We look forward to hearing more steps in this direction

as we try to meet our Paris climate change targets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement, and agree that every single action we take to lower greenhouse gas

matters.

True environmental stewardship requires concrete

action. While transitioning homes from fossil fuels is a good initiative, we

will need an effective rate mitigation plan if this program is to meet its true

potential, after all, why would homeowners switch to electricity without knowing

the costs they will be facing.

We also call on government today to take true steps

towards better environmental stewardship, declare a climate emergency, introduce

a just transition plan from fossil fuels and establish a climate change task

force.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth

and Skills.

BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we grow our province's population by

attracting and retaining newcomers to live, to work and to feel a sense of

belonging in our communities all while ensuring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

have the skills and supports they need to live and work here.

Population growth is essential to our province, Mr.

Speaker. We're all especially heartened by the strong endorsement of our mandate

by Members of the Official Opposition and the Third Party during our budget

Estimates.

Budget 2021

has

us positioned to welcome 5,100 newcomers a year by 2026, with over $3 million

available to help match employers with newcomers to address emerging gaps in our

labour market and support population growth. While we work to welcome people

here in record numbers we will also ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have

the skills and supports they need with funding for training, apprenticeships,

youth employment and career development.

Mr. Speaker, we launched the innovative Priority Skills

immigration program in response to a growing demand for highly educated, highly

skilled workers in our province. This program seeks newcomers with specialized

education and experience in areas such as technology, ocean sciences and health,

where demand has outpaced local training and recruitment. Since the Priority

Skills launch in January, we have received some 12,000 submissions from

experienced professionals, including Memorial University of Newfoundland and

Labrador graduates.

I'm pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that the

health sector has reviewed more than 2,000 applications and has identified 385

people to date who will be invited to apply for permanent residency in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

At this moment, our staff is working with these

potential newcomers to get them on the path to become a part of Newfoundland and

Labrador's family.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to providing further

updates on more job-matching success stories as we continue to review Priority

Skills applications for other in-demand sectors, such as technology and

aquaculture, and welcoming more newcomers to their new home, Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy

of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, I join the minister in acknowledging the

Priority Skills immigration program, which aims to attract newcomers to our

province with specialized education and experience in areas such as technology,

ocean sciences and health, where demand has outpaced local training and

recruitment.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a tremendous bounty to

offer newcomers to our province: fresh air, clean water, rugged coastlines and

some of the friendliest people on the planet. We have been truly blessed, Mr.

Speaker; however, our province is the oldest per capita and has among the lowest

birth rates in this country. Quite simply, we desperately need newcomers to our

province to help bridge this gap. The PC Official Opposition looks forward to

hearing more details and, ultimately, the results of this initiative and others

like it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement and commend him on the Priority Skills pathway for newcomers. For

years, the government has been boasting about their attempts to increase

immigration and retention. Over time, Memorial University and the CNA have done

a tremendous job of attracting talented people and encouraging them to make this

province their home. Yet the key problem is that government struggles to retain

these individuals.

We call on the government today to cancel its planned

cuts to education. Let our strong academic institutions continue to do what this

government fails to do. Meanwhile, we also ask government to focus its efforts

on creating a credible plan to retain those who are already coming to this

province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Are

there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association says that the minister's comment that we are blessed with the amount

of doctors and nurses working in our province doesn't tell the full story. The

association says 90,000 people are without a family doctor in our province,

which could get worse as doctors age and retire.

I ask the Premier: Do you agree with the Health

Minister's assessment?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Member opposite for that important

question.

As we are all aware, the demographics across this

province are changing significantly, as is the training of medical

professionals. We understand that the changes need to meet the demands of the

communities. This is a complex issue that is not just simply a numeric one or a

ratio.

To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant

of it and we're willing to work with all members of the medical communities –

doctors, nurses, advanced care paramedics, nurse practitioners: everybody – to

come to a solution for the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's one of the reasons that we put in place the Health Accord. We look

forward to hearing their recommendations on how we look at a different vision of

health care that hasn't changed, really, since the '60s, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Medical Association's review says that we need 60

new physicians immediately and an additional 10 per year for the next decade.

I ask the Premier: Will the province meet these

targets?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Mr.

Speaker, I can certainly tell you that we're very lucky to have a medical school

here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does an incredible job in providing

doctors – and premiers – to the province. We will continue to ensure that is

developing and providing the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's done an incredible job since the '70s and it continues to meet the needs of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The reality is that the needs are, however, changing as

the demographics change. We need to make sure that they're being trained

appropriately in a team atmosphere so that the millennials, who are now

physicians, are getting the work-life balance that they require. That's what

will ultimately keep physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and we, on this side of the House, also see the value

and the professionalism of our medical school.

The president of the Medical Association has said: “We

have to have a human resources plan. We have to plan out where do we need

physicians, how many do we need and where should they be working.”

I ask the Premier: When will a human resources plan be

completed? Will he table it in this hon. House?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The issue around access for primary care, particularly,

is really important and very topical at the moment. It's probably one of two

comments I get in my inbox. The Health Accord really is going to redesign the

way primary care is delivered through collaborative teams. Until that

recommendation comes out, the health resource plan that everyone talks about

needs to be considered in that light.

We have our challenges with recruitment and retention

and we're rising to meet those. We held a day recently, Dean Steele, to sound

out what it would be that would help retain our excellent graduates, Mr.

Speaker. We'll continue to work on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Medical Association has stated that we have the

worst retention rate of any medical school in the country. Doctors and nurses

that are trained here do not stay here. Meanwhile, the Greene report recommends

cutting the number of nursing schools in our province from three to one.

I ask the Premier: How do cutting nursing schools help

retain health care professionals?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.

I think it's an important point of clarity. I believe

what was insinuated in the Greene report was to amalgamate the administration of

those three nursing schools, Mr. Speaker. We understand the importance of

nursing schools across the province so that they provide and return to the

communities where they develop.

We're continuing to commit to that, but we need to make

sure that we're offering it in an efficient way, including the streamlining of

corporate services and administrative costs. Surely, it doesn't make sense to

have three back ends when we need a fully serviced front end, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That needs to be clarified because the need for nurses

and nursing schools in Newfoundland and Labrador in different regions is very

important to the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

BRAZIL:

Last week, the minister stated that there are chronic issues around recruitment

for nurses in our province. This government has been in place for almost six

years and the chronic issue of recruitment is causing burnout with our current

nursing staff.

I ask the Premier: When will chronic issues around

recruitment finally be resolved?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Mr.

Speaker, these issues unfortunately are not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador.

We're working hard to try to come up with unique, creative models and, in fact,

had a great meeting with the president of the Nurses' Union to that effect, in

which we suggested – and she suggested, frankly – different models to provide

care to remote and rural communities that would allow nurses to exercise their

full capacity as nurses, to meet their full training requirements and to

flourish in their professional capacity.

That will involve thinking outside the box, Mr.

Speaker. The traditional way of providing health care to all communities across

the province – it doesn't matter if it's urban or rural – has changed. It's

acutely changed with respect to the pandemic. We need to make sure that we're

providing all the supports for those nurses, especially, however, in rural

communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that thousands of medical procedures have

been backlogged because of COVID, yet the Premier's Greene report says that

health care should be cut by 25 per cent over the next six years. We have a

doctor and nurse shortage, 90,000 people without a family doctor and an aging

population that will require more and more care.

I ask the Premier: How can a 25 per cent cut to health

care spending improve these difficult numbers?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The recommendations for discussion in the Greene report

are just that, Mr. Speaker. They have gone out for consultation. What the Health

Accord is clearly mandated to look at is the concept of doing things more

efficiently, more patient focused and allowing the savings that are generated as

a result of that – the Premier has referenced back office functions, for example

– to be plowed back into broader social determinants of health, which actually,

over a person's life, have far more impact than any particular health care

provider can do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to hear that the Greene report may just be

suggestions and not recommendations, because I can tell you from this side of

the House, those of us that represent rural districts, and those of you on the

other side that represent rural districts, when it talks about things like 25

per cent cut in health care or anything else, the report shouldn't have stopped

at big reset. It probably should've been called the big resettlement. So I'm a

little worried about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, effective July 1, 2.21 cents per litre – or 2.5 cents per litre if you

include HST – will be added to our gas prices as a result of carbon tax

increases.

I ask the minister: How much additional revenue will

this generate?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An important question: The carbon tax revenue forecast

for '21-'22 is $113 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, carbon taxes are a gas tax, and higher taxes mean higher transportation

costs, meaning higher costs for consumers and businesses.

I ask the minister: What is being done to protect the

everyday consumer from these ever-increasing fuel prices?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite is aware, this is the federal

carbon tax that is put on because of climate change. It's a very big concern for

our country and for the globe – climate change is. The idea of the carbon tax

was to help lower the amount of carbon being emitted into our atmosphere. A lot

of the money that I've just spoken about that's being gleaned from the carbon

tax is going towards programs to get us to net zero by 2050.

What we want to have, Mr. Speaker, is a cleaner

environment. We want to ensure that climate change is addressed in our lifetime.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, this isn't the first year for a carbon tax increase. This is actually

the third. In previous years, the carbon tax increase was offset by a reduction

in our gas taxes.

I ask the minister: How come we didn't reduce the gas

tax by the same amount this year to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

and keep them whole?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The question, I think, is an important one in that

carbon tax will continue to increase. This is a federal government initiative to

address climate change.

There is a gas tax that is administered by the

provincial government. We have done a scan across the country. Previously, we

were a little high on our gas tax, Mr. Speaker. We are now middle of the road

with regard to the imposition of gas tax. In fact, we are really in the middle

of the pack across the country; therefore, there was no room for us to move

lower. We were very competitive in our gas tax and we felt that was where we

needed to be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, the reality of it is this budget, again, is focused on revenue

generation. This new carbon tax increase will generate, as the minister just

said, another $130 million in revenue to the province, at the same time having a

negative impact on the people of the province.

I would ask the minister, again: On the issue of job

creation, you had mentioned there were no mass layoffs. Is there going to be any

job losses as a result of actions taken in this year's budget?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you very much.

Let me correct the Member opposite in an erroneous

statement he just made, Mr. Speaker. He indicated that the carbon tax was going

to be an increase of $113 million. It is not, that is what the total revenue is

going to be for carbon tax this year.

With regard to the question, Mr. Speaker, I can say it

is not the goal of this government, we do not think it is a wise thing to do to

have mass layoffs at all. That is not our goal, as I have said consistently in

the House. Actually, government is actually actively recruiting for 500 people

at current, Mr. Speaker. So, no, I can say to the Member opposite: It is not the

goal of this government to have mass layoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, I have to go back and correct the minister again because obviously she

never heard m y question when she answered with $130 million. I asked what

additional revenue would be collected by the province from the carbon tax

increase so it's not $113 million, if that's the total amount. I was referring

to the 2.5 cents that will be added this year.

How much does that actually increase revenue by?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to do math really quickly on the top of my

head and say approximately $60 million.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

No,

I'm done.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had many calls and emails over the last little

while, especially the weekend, as I'm sure many have, from constituents and

changing of the vaccination

schedule has caused. We're hearing of people who

were able to book their second dose but now the appointments are further away

than their first appointment.

I ask the minister: What is being done to stop this

confusion and ensure that second doses are scheduled sooner rather than later.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Excellent question, Mr. Speaker.

The RHAs are in the process of adding additional

clinics as we speak, we are expecting an additional 150,000 doses of Moderna

vaccine this week alone and into the beginning of next. We will see that amount

continue over the course of the summer.

Whereas, before, it used to be Pfizer we

could rely on, now there is a prevalence or predominance of Moderna.

It's great to see the enthusiasm for second doses. I

would encourage people to keep an eye on their local health authority websites

as new clinics are literally being added by the hour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

It's not really encouraging to hear that in matters of health, you're planning

as you go. This probably should have been all in place before the announcement

was made.

But speaking of the supply of Moderna, which is coming,

we welcome that. We understand there are little to no appointments available for

the Pfizer vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine currently approved

for use with youth 12 to 18. This means young people face an extra barrier to

getting protection from COVID-19.

I ask the minister: What are our children supposed to

do?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

I'm

really glad the Member opposite asked that question, Mr. Speaker. It gives me an

opportunity to highlight the fact that, as of tomorrow, clinics will simply be

advertised as MRNA clinics. Each of the regional health authorities will inspect

the appointments for the following day and make sure that anybody under the age

of 16 who has an appointment will have a Pfizer dose waiting for them when they

turn up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

DINN:

That's good to know but the youth that we're talking about are 12 to 18. Those

over 16 are going to still have the same issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report said “The

Provincial Government should: Institute a moratorium on building new long term

care facilities ….” In March 2020, there were 310 people waiting for long-term

placement.

Will there be a freeze on adding more long-term beds in

this province?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Moderna is actually licensed down to the age of 16. The

difference is 12 to 15, Mr. Speaker. That's Pfizer only, currently.

Having corrected that, in terms of long-term care, our

aim is aging at home, aging in place and we have had significant success over

the last year and half now, nearly two, in repatriating seniors from long-term

care back into the community. The first time this has ever happened. I'm pleased

to say Central Health led the way.

We will continue to assess the number of long-term care

beds from a residential point of view as we go. If we need more, we'll get more.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of Suncor said there

will be a lot of work done in Bull Arm on the Terra Nova.

Can the minister outline the value of the work? How

many jobs will be created at the Bull Arm site?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the local vice-president did say there would be

work done at Bull Arm but I believe later on said that the scope of work is

still something that's being identified. I'm not sure actually what that number

would be. We do know that there will be some work done out there, and we do

realize that the refit will happen in Spain as previously planned as well.

The big thing that we were concerned about was that any

money from Newfoundland and Labrador that went in had to be spent in

Newfoundland and Labrador and on Newfoundland and Labrador workers, so we

continue to work on the details. We know we're still waiting to see the deal get

struck within the next number of weeks and we'll hopefully be able to report

more to this House as soon a possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

I'm

glad to hear the minister say that they're pushing to get the work done by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I urge him to continue that push.

Bull Arm was the home of Hibernia, Hebron and now it

will be home to upgrades on the Terra Nova, once again proving its worth as a

world-class facility in the oil and gas industry.

I ask the minister: Does he agree with the Premier's

Greene report and its recommendations to sell off the Bull Arm site?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's certainly no doubt as to the value of Bull Arm

to this province and we've seen a lot of work done there in the past and

hopefully we're going to see some work there in the future, whether it's with

the Terra Nova FPSO or hopefully future work as it relates to a lot of the

potential projects that we have here in this province.

What I would say about the Greene report is that it's

recommendations. The big thing that I've noticed in this portfolio, whether it's

the divestiture of assets, whether it's Bull Arm or whether it's our stake in

projects, is that we need to explore everything. We have a number of

investments; is it the time to monetize them or not monetize them? We haven't

had that assessment done, but anything that belongs to the people of this

province we'll make sure that we protect it in the best interests of the people

of the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the department is doing an analysis on the

Premier's Greene report recommendations.

Will the minister commit to releasing this analysis

once it is complete?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what we've shown over the last number of

months, certainly since I've been in this role, is that I think it's incumbent

on us to release what we can to the people of this province, where available.

What we've also seen here as well is that we will not disclose anything that

would be not just commercially sensitive but places us in a difficult position

as it relates to negotiations.

I mean, we want to get information out there, but not

to the detriment of the people that we're actively working for. So while I can't

say I have any issue with releasing information, of course we want to put it out

there for people, what I will say is the only caveat would be putting out

anything that would hurt us as a province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, we've missed the boat on opportunity with Bull Arm with regard to a

long-term plan.

I'd like to ask the minister: What exactly is the plan

for the future of Bull Arm and how will we continue to create jobs out there for

decades to come?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the assessment that we've missed the

opportunity. I think that the province has done what we can during trying times.

Right now it's being managed by OilCo and we know that there is a lease,

extending up into next year, with DF Barnes. There's work that's happening in

there, but not to the extent that anyone would like to see. It's not because

opportunities are missed; it's just the opportunities in many cases just have

not been there.

What I will say is that I do see optimism; I do see

potential. In fact, I've had people reach out to me over the last number of

months to talk about ideas for Bull Arm. We're open to absolutely anything, but

we are keeping an eye on, right now, the work for the Terra Nova happening in

Bull Arm.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

would think some of those people reaching out with ideas are the same people

that reached out in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Mr. Speaker, the Come By Chance oil refinery shut down

last year. Consumers are paying an extra five cents per litre on gasoline. It

remains shut down and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are still paying through

the nose for gasoline.

I ask the minister: Why haven't you asked the PUB to

review the gas prices?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll take the first one on this, although I do believe

the Minister of Service NL will get an opportunity as well, given that the PUB

actually falls under her mandate.

What I can say is that, yes, there has been a request

by a company, but usually we do not interfere with quasi-judicial bodies as it

relates to their work. Anybody is free to make the application. We have the

Consumer Advocate, an independent office, in place to advocate on behalf of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Right now, the information is not there. While we have

spoken to the PUB, if you touch this, then we're basically concerning ourselves

with a number of things where it becomes a very slippery slope down the road.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Regardless of whose department it is, Mr. Speaker, when people go to the pumps,

they pay carbon tax, harmonized sales tax, excise tax and, to make things worse,

tax is paid on tax.

Why hasn't the minister stepped in and mandated that

the PUB find a solution to high gasoline prices which are negatively impacting

families in this province?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Petroleum

Products Act outlines the role of the Public Utilities Board, which is an

extremely important, independent role, and they monitor gas prices. They monitor

fuel price and supply, as well as review the marketplace changes. They would be

the body that I would encourage any residents or constituents to reach out to in

regard to concerns around gas prices.

Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know this year's tourism season is going to be

critical for the future of our province and that staycations are an important

part of the plan. An inflated price of gas will keep people from travelling

across the province.

I ask the minister: Why are we hindering our tourism

industry by keeping gas prices so high?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think the Member understands how this process

works. Government is not making the price high. That's absolutely not how this

works. God bless him; I wish George Murphy was around because there's nobody

that could explain this process better than George, rest in peace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARSONS:

But

this is a good segue, perhaps, to talk about tourism. I know my colleague in

front would love to have an opportunity. I can say that this budget, we're

seeing about $30 million invested in tourism across the province through a very

simple, easy-to-use process. In fact, the reviews that we got last year from

this industry were absolutely positive. In fact, we've taken that, we've doubled

down and we're doing more.

Just listen to the comments from operators that have

reached out to us, and Brenda O'Reilly talking about the minister, I think we've

done a pretty good job helping tourism in this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was only last week I was asking the question why $12

million of that $30 million went unspent when we lost 10.8 per cent of our

businesses in the tourism industry. We do have control of taxation on gas. I'm

fully aware that we can't control the price of gas, but the amount of taxation

that we have on gas can certainly incentivize travel if we reduce it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PARDY:

We're excited to see the airline industry slowly returning routes into our

province, but with the reopening around the corner we need more capacity to

maximize this year's critical tourism season.

The minister stated in Question Period previously that

HNL has a plan and it now rests with government to increase the number of daily

flights in and out of the province.

Is government fully endorsing this plan, and why hasn't

it occurred yet?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We've had great conversations with HNL and our airport

partners with this. We're continuing to have conversations with airlines. I have

a meeting tomorrow with PAL to also bring these conversations further. We're

seeing the movement from Air Canada and WestJet and PAL. PAL is now expanding as

far as Ottawa. It's great to see.

We're going to work with the airlines and make sure

that we're getting the necessary routes back in place as quickly as possible,

Mr. Speaker. As you would've seen or heard in the budget when the Minister of

Finance delivered said budget, there is a commitment to air access in that

budget.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, funeral homes in the metro St. John's area

are owed well over $200,000 by the provincial government for funeral services

for recipients of income support. Funeral homes have attempted to resolve this

issue since 2016 without success, forcing them to change the way they provide

services. I've heard that this has become such an issue that a long-term storage

cooling truck has been placed at the Health Sciences Centre to handle the

remains of loved ones.

I ask the Premier why the Liberal government has

allowed this to continue for five years while grieving families are caught in

the middle at a time when they need comfort, and the deceased be treated with

dignity and respect. More importantly, what action is being planned to address

this issue?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

BYRNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the question.

This is something which is a reflection of myself. I

was approached when I was minister responsible for Income Support by members of

the profession to help them provide supports for those families that could not

afford to provide funeral services for their family members.

One of the things that we did at that point in time –

this was some time ago, Mr. Speaker; you may learn this through conversations

with the funeral directors – is that we authorized an expedited program whereby

information can be provided to funeral home directors as to exact costs that the

income support program would provide. Annually, we provide over $1 million to

families in Newfoundland and Labrador that cannot afford funeral services for

their loved ones, whether they be on income support or otherwise. Mr. Speaker,

that program is very effective.

SPEAKER:

The

Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the minister that the program is

failing and that government is basically allowing funeral homes to do the work

it's supposed to be doing.

Last week in this House I presented the climate

emergency declaration petition signed by some 590 people, and more are coming.

I ask the Premier: Will his government, as called for

in the petition, declare a climate emergency and establish a task force on

decreasing the effects of the climate change crisis?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question and

bringing up issues with respect to climate change and making it a front-of-mind

issue, as it should be for each and every one of us.

As I said in the petitions numerous times last week, we

have set a course to work with our plan that we have in place with respect to 43

of the 45 recommendations in process or completed. That plan, it is a five-year

plan. We are only partway through that plan. It is going to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions, stimulate clean innovation and growth in the economy. It's an

opportunity for us to work with many partners, with the federal government,

municipalities and communities all across our province to reach the goals we

want to by 2050.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

While there has been substantial progress in providing

mental health support in recent years, the financial hurdle for long-term

counselling remains.

Could this government update the Legislature as to

steps to make it count – i.e., that important counselling – as a medical expense

for those that can pay privately and/or cover it entirely for those who require

extended assistance but cannot afford to participate, such as under the MCP?

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, our province cannot afford to not

provide this help.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite and the people of the province

are aware, mental health services are provided under MCP and, lots of times,

through additional private services as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is a non-refundable tax credit to

the lesser of $23,097 or 3 per cent, I believe, of net income for those that

qualify or for those that need it. This is for costs associated with therapy for

someone with a physical or a mental impairment, including services, for example,

provided by a psychologist. This is a non-refundable tax credit offered through

the federal. I believe the Member opposite may be aware of that.

I think the question is whether or not we could add

additional supports to that. That is something we'll take under advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, and I thank the minister for that.

I do hope we can make progress.

My second question, Mr. Speaker: I've been asking

questions and reading petitions as to the needed repairs on Route 520 throughout

this session of the Legislature. While there have been strong statements to

address this highway under the current Premier going back to last year, the

people of Sheshatshiu and North West River still have no update on this critical

situation.

Seeing as we are now in the summer season, when will

the tender be issued for repairs on Route 520?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the question.

On Route 520 there have been repairs that have started,

as he's aware of, on the Goose River Bridge, which is important, on Route 520. I

will say to the Member that I'm certainly committed to work with him in terms of

discussing the necessary work that's required on Route 520.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with

section 56 of the

Automobile Insurance Act ,

I'm pleased to submit the 2020-2021

Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on Operations

Carried Out under the Automobile

Insurance Act .

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social

Development.

ABBOTT:

Mr.

Speaker, in response to recommendation 33 of the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate's report A Long Wait for Change:

Independent Review of Child Protection Services to Inuit Children in

Newfoundland and Labrador , 2019, I'm pleased to table the

Report on Child Welfare Services to

Indigenous Children, Youth and Families, 2019-20 .

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Any

other tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the

community Cold Brook is the responsibility of the Department of Transportation

and Infrastructure. Sections of the roadway have been in deplorable condition

for the last five years and need repair and resurfacing. Children are required

to ride school buses twice daily over roadways where sections of the paved road

are actually missing. There have been a number of close calls where vehicles

have to swerve in order to avoid driving over a

section of that roadway. The

residents of Cold Brook deserve better.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing,

upgrading and maintaining the paved road through the community of Cold Brook in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I've presented this petition on at least

one other occasion in the House and, actually, to three different ministers now.

I'm third time lucky or third time charming; I'm not sure which it is. It is an

issue that – and I'm beginning to learn more and more about it. Apparently, the

road to Cold Brook was actually started to be paved some years ago. We ran into

one of those unfortunate situations where a hurricane came our way and some of

the funds that were allocated for the refinishing of that

section of road had to

be diverted to some bridge repairs in the district as it was back then.

In actual fact, when you drive into Cold Brook, the

first

section of road, you can see, has been resurfaced, but it's the last

kilometre that never got resurfaced. It has continued to deteriorate. I am

hoping that with the season started and a kilometre of pavement to be done, that

as the paving machines roll out to the West Coast and contracts are let, this

particular road can be finished once and for all.

I look forward to hearing from the minister.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

LOVELESS:

Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much.

Yes, I have heard the Member mention this road over and

over and over, no doubt. Today I can tell him I'm not going to say yes and I'm

not going to say no. I'm looking at ways to see if I can get it done for the

Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present my petition today and the background is as

follows:

WHEREAS there are no current long-term operations at

the Bull Arm Fabrication site;

WHEREAS it's a world-class facility with the potential

to rejuvenate the local economy and the provincial economy;

WHEREAS residents are troubled with the lack of local

employment in today's economy;

We would like the facility to encourage employment for

the area and create the economic spinoffs for local businesses. This is an asset

of the province. I don't think that the recommendation to sell it off,

obviously, is to the benefit of our province because I think a more long-term

tenant, Mr. Speaker, would be more attractive for gainful business

opportunities.

WHEREAS the continued idling and not being up to the

full potential are not in the best interests of the province;

THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull

Arm Fabrication site, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get Bull Arm Fabrication

site back in operation. We request that this process include a vision for a

long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I want to say that it's nice to see that the minister

is here to hear my petition. I really do appreciate that. We're here to work

together with the government for a long-term benefit to this great asset. The

petition I present today is signed by people in Sunnyside this time, Mr.

Speaker, and one of those is actually the mayor of Sunnyside, Mayor Gerald

Snook. Like I said, it's very important to this area because the spinoffs are so

great.

I'm going to stop there and just ask the minister, I

guess: Are we exploring all potential operators to take over the Bull Arm site?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the petition from the Member and his

constituents.

I wish I had more to report, but the reality is we do

not at this time.

The one thing to remember, though, just a couple of

principles, I guess, that sort of guide certainly me but I think all the Members

of this side are that, (a), we have recognition of the fact that we have a

tremendous asset there and that we are very lucky to have that. The second

part

is that I am not compelled by a Greene report or anything to do one thing or the

other. It's nice though to have input, the same way that we have this report.

Again, there's a lot of work that went into it. But no different than I speak to

local mayors, no different than you speak to advocacy groups. All that forms a

basis of information for the department to take to try to figure out what is the

best step.

While I am certainly not opposed to examining to see if

it can be divested for a good reason, at the same time, I certainly wouldn't

want to see anything happen for the sake of doing the same.

Right now we do know that DF Barnes is there, as I

said, but we also know that it is underutilized. There's no doubt that we don't

have as much out there. But if you had asked me six months ago, maybe I would

have been a little more pessimistic. With the way things have gone recently, I'm

certainly seeing a lot more optimism and I think hopefully we'll see more going

on in that area.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

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

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's hard competing with these bunch here.

I'm presenting a petition for gender-affirming

surgeries, Mr. Speaker.

In November of 2019, the province announced that

transgender persons would be able to access chest surgeries through the

provincial MCP system;

The province quietly imposed punitive and restrictive

regulations for trans women. Trans women must be taking hormone replacement

drugs for 18 months; the world standard is 12. These women must have no breast

development at all. The world standard on transgender health care states that

“The medical procedures attendant to gender affirming/confirming surgeries are

not 'cosmetic' or 'elective' or 'for the mere convenience of the patient.' These

reconstructive procedures are not optional in any meaningful sense, but are

understood to be medically necessary for the treatment of the diagnosed

condition”;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call for the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Remove the

restrictive and punitive regulations regarding breast augmentation for

transgender women; and to allow medical decisions regarding transgender health

care to be decided by the patient and their doctor or medical team.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, a petition signed by some 200

people. This is the second time I presented a petition on this. Considering,

when we look at it, we are at end of Pride Month. We've passed legislation here

regarding birth certificates and the ability to not have your gender identified.

We look at the incidents in Mount Pearl with the burning or the theft of the

Pride flags, I think it's important that as a government we're sending a clear

message that people who undergo these surgeries are given the full benefit so

that they can live the lives that they wish to live and to be identified in the

way that they wish to be identified.

I do call upon the minister, again, to remove the

restrictive and punitive regulations and to allow any such decisions to be

decided by the patient, Mr. Speaker, and their doctor or medical team.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows: The

Public Utilities Board has approved a licence for an ambulance owner to operate

in the area from Bay Bulls to Bauline. This area is one of the fastest growing

areas of the province; there have been many concerns from residents,

municipalities, councils and emergency responders regarding response times.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the position of this service

provider and ensure that residents of Ferryland District meet national standards

for response times.

Mr. Speaker, I presented this petition on a couple of

other occasions, I would think, and it's a growing concern in our area. Between

Bay Bulls to Bauline there are roughly about 5,000 residents and right now

residents have to wait, I'm going to say, 45 minutes for an ambulance and that's

on a good day. We have incidents where constituents have to wait upwards of two

hours. Sometimes that happens and it happens way too often and it's something

that we should definitely look at.

There's an operator willing and able to step forward

and operate this service, and I ask the government again: What is the hold up on

it? We have two ambulances that are based in Cape Broyle that typically only

have enough for one crew and so the ambulance is sitting there in the yard. It's

just not something that's acceptable. If they go on an alert and an ambulance

from Cape Broyle could possibly respond in the area of Bay Bulls and they might

get a call to go to Trepassey, their ambulance is gone out so they could go to

Trepassey and that means we have a longer wait time coming from St. John's. If

they happen to be in a red alert, where do we stand then? So it's just something

that I bring to the minister and hopefully consider and have a look at.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador has a rate of sexual assault of nearly four

times the national average according to the RCMP and the RNC. While this region

only makes up five per cent of the province's total population, Labrador has 25

per cent of the police-reported sexual assaults. In 2020, Statistics Canada

reported that there were some 449 police-reported sexual assaults on average for

every 100,000 people in Canada, while in Labrador we had about 681.

Many of the sexual assault survivors are Innu or Inuit,

living in communities where support services are lacking. It is crucial that the

victims of sexual assault receive proper care, as to not be further traumatized.

It is also important for the people administering the care to be culturally

aware and to have the proper education in these matters. The nearest

professionally trained support is based in St. John's.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a

sexual assault nurse examiner in Labrador that can support survivors and provide

awareness/education regarding these terrible crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I have reported this petition before, and

I'm very pleased to say and I thank the minister for her co-operation and her

own initiative and enthusiasm. I understand that the department is looking to

move not just a single person, but, in fact, to have many persons trained in

these procedures across Labrador to provide that counselling, provide that

support. I thank her very much for that and I just encourage her to move as

quickly as possible for what is a very serious matter affecting Labrador and my

district.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I brought this petition a few times now. This is the

last one for this sitting here now. It's 160 signatures. It's a petition to

increase the support for Labrador West seniors.

The reason for the petition: The need for senior

accessible housing and home-care services in Labrador West is steadily

increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility of

needing to leave their home in order to afford to live or receive adequate care.

Additional housing options, including assisted-living care facilities, like

those found throughout the rest of the province, for seniors have become a

requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is not currently being met.

WHEREAS the seniors of our province are entitled to

peace and comfort in their own homes where they have spent a lifetime

contributing to its prosperity and growth;

WHEREAS the means for the increasing number of senior

residents of Labrador West to happily age in place are not currently available

in the region;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call

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

to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in their community by providing

affordable housing options for seniors and assisted-living care facilities for

those requiring care.

Mr. Speaker, I have brought this (inaudible) and the

minister has responded a couple of times to it. I'm happy to hear that he's open

to the idea of looking at what seniors need in Labrador West. Like I've said

many times before, these people have built their entire lives in building a

community in Labrador West. It's a relatively new community. When you talk about

the age of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's one of the newest communities there.

It was never designed for seniors, but now seniors want to stay and watch their

grandchildren enjoy the community that they've built.

I ask the House to take a serious consideration at

looking at the needs and stuff of seniors in the area when it comes to adequate

housing and other options like that, and different levels of care that are

required in the area, so we can continue to grow and build as a community and

also watch our parents and grandparents continue to enjoy the community that

they've built.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality to respond to the

previous petition.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I want to also commend my hon. colleague, of

course, for bringing this very important matter. As we all know, it certainly is

a priority and the Member is certainly accurate when he says that this certainly

is in the works.

Just to say again on record that an additional $425,000

in funding to advance the work of the Office of Women and Gender Equality and

the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity, as well as the expansion of the

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program. Again, to confirm to the Member this

certainly is a priority. I really appreciate that and I thank him for bringing

up this important matter, because we need to keep these conversations at the

forefront and that is exactly what our government will do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Motion 3.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that not withstanding

Standing Order 63 this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on

Wednesday, June 23, 2021, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for

Routine Proceedings and to conduct government business, and that any private

Member's motion by the Official Opposition scheduled for that day shall be

deferred and shall be debated on the next occurring Private Members' Day.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 7.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety, that

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 7, now be read

a second time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act,

2009 do now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Vital Statistics Act, 2009.” (Bill 7)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been a big week or two weeks for the Vital

Statistics Act; this is our second change. It is very exciting; very important

piece of legislation that protects some of the administration around residents

of our province.

Today, the changes we are proposing will do three

things. The first is introduce an important piece of consumer protection, which

I'll explain. We're going to make it easier to get documents processed when a

loved one has passed away. Thirdly, we are making an administrative change to

increase the responsiveness upon processing death registrations.

I'll just walk through that now, Mr. Speaker. The first

change around an important piece of consumer protection has to do with when one

applies for a birth, marriage or death certificate. I had a baby in October and

I had to do this. I went online and I googled birth certificate NL or apply for

a birth certificate Newfoundland and Labrador so that I could apply for a birth

certificate for my little boy.

When one googles that or looks online for that, whether

it's a birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate, our

government website comes up and there's an easy process to fill out your birth

certificate. It could be better, but we're working on it. What also comes up in

search results are third party sites, and through a third party you could apply

for a Newfoundland and Labrador birth certificate, among other certificates. Mr.

Speaker, there's nothing wrong with that at the moment. There's nothing illegal

about that, but that's certainly something that we're proposing to change in

this amendment today.

Currently, there are third parties who operate

websites. They're not located in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they allow

residents to put in the same information they provide the provincial government

and they can apply for a birth certificate, for example, through these websites.

You submit all the information you have to do to submit a birth certificate and

one might think that they are actually applying with the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador when they are not. Sure, if you could read the fine

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm involved in some of the baby

Facebook groups and a lot of the comments that I see there around people

applying for birth certificates for their children makes me believe that there

are many, many people applying for certificates through one of these third party

websites.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we get 200 to 500, per year,

requests that come in from these third party websites. Again, there's nothing

illegal at the moment about this, Mr. Speaker. But some of the kind of negative

elements, I guess, is that residents often pay a lot more. It costs $30 to $35;

$30 if you do it online with us and $35 if you apply in person for a birth

certificate, for example. Where some of these websites are charging $60, $75 to

$100 for the same certificate. They're just collecting the information and

giving it to us. It's really using the fact that people google these things and

they can get a really high Google ranking. In a way they're kind of taking

advantage of residents, Mr. Speaker. Again, there's nothing illegal at the

moment, but that's what we're proposing to change.

For us to remedy this, Mr. Speaker, we are introducing

a revised definition of a designated agent, because right now these third

parties are acting as designated agents. The changes we're proposing: In order

to apply for a certificate on someone's behalf as a designated agent you will

need to know the person for one year and the registrar would also have

discretion around this. So if there was a unique situation, then the registrar

could handle it, or you would have to provide authorization in writing that

someone could apply for this on your behalf.

Essentially, these third party organizations who are

currently applying for certificates on people's behalf – in most cases, I would

imagine unbeknownst to the person applying – they will no longer be able to do

this practice. We've seen this across other provinces and other provinces have

had to enact similar legislation to protect their consumers.

The other element I'll add, Mr. Speaker, is the

protection of personal information. These are third party organizations, but the

information you have to submit to apply for a birth certificate, a death

certificate or a marriage certificate, this is quite a high level of sensitive

information. There are many residents of the province putting these into these

third party websites at the moment. Yes, they transmit it to us, but that's kind

of an extra, unnecessary layer. You're giving your information – your most

sensitive information – to an additional company that you don't need to give it

to them. You just give it to us and we'll take appropriate care of your personal

information. That's the first and very important change that we're proposing

today around consumer protection.

There are two other changes, Mr. Speaker. The first is

when someone applies for a marriage certificate and one party to the marriage

certificate cannot be reached or is incapacitated, it's difficult for a family

who's maybe doing some administrative things to reach a resolution around that.

We're proposing changes, Mr. Speaker, so that children, parents, siblings of

deceased can apply for a marriage certificate. We anticipate this is going to be

very helpful in some matters of estate resolution or when one party to a

marriage certificate cannot be located. We have all of our normal checks and

balances in place, but there is kind of a unique situation here that we're

trying to remedy.

Mr. Speaker, the third change we're proposing today is

an administrative issue around releasing death registrations. Currently, in

order for the registrar to release a death registration, written authorization

is required from myself, the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL. I

see a lot of these. I review the documentation and sign off, saying: I agree

that the registrar can release the death registration. This is kind of an

unnecessary burden, so we're going to change this process to make it more

appropriate so that they don't have to wait for my signature. We're going to

reduce the time required to process that change, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very pleased to introduce these changes today. As I

mentioned, for the first change particularly, it impacts – between 200 to 500

people every year are paying more than they need to and giving up more

information than they need to. We're very happy with these proposed changes and

look forward to debate and discussion in Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it's a privilege and an honour to represent the

District of Ferryland in this hon. House.

First of all, I'd like to start off by thanking the

minister and her staff for the briefing that we had on this legislation. It's

something that we'll be supporting and something that we'll certainly endorse.

I'll just go over a couple of things that the minister did go over, but there

are a couple of points I would touch on. Basically, there are three changes, as

she had said.

Currently, the current legislation does not prevent it.

There are online companies who offer to help you get a copy of your own vital

statistic documents, like a birth certificate. These companies charge well above

the government fees. For example, a company will charge $100 for a birth

certificate, which is actually only $30 on the government website. These

companies do not deliver the documents any faster than the Government of NL

website, and in the process, they're getting access to personal information.

This is happening because they ask the customer to give them written consent

through an online form.

To fix this to protect consumers, this legislation is

narrowing who can ask for a birth certificate, a marriage certificate or a death

certificate on behalf of someone else. People who can obtain documents on

someone else's behalf will be called designated agents – is what they're saying.

A designated agent will be a person who is 19 years of age or older and is

designated by the individual and, one of, has known the person for at least a

year; is a lawyer representing that person; or is working for an aid giving

non-profit.

That was the first one. The second piece of

legislation: There is no restriction who can apply for a copy of a marriage

licence when one of the parties to the marriage is deceased. This causes trouble

when one of the parties is deceased and their family cannot track down the other

party to the marriage. Think about marriages that were dissolved or divorces

many years ago.

To fix this, this legislation allows a child, a parent

or an executor of a deceased party to obtain the marriage certificate. This will

also assist in situations where one party has deceased and the other party is

elderly, ill or will be troubled for applying for a marriage certificate. This

legislation can and will put the province in line with most other Canadian

provinces.

The third change again is just something that when they

apply for – really, it's government red tape right now. Currently, the registrar

of Vital Statistics has to get written authorization from the minister to

release a death certificate. So, I'm going to say, they're taking the minister

out of the equation and putting it on to someone in the office who can help, I'm

going to say, make it happen a little quicker, rather than have to wait for the

minister to sign off.

I think they're three good pieces of legislation and I

do have a few questions when we get to Committee.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Any

other speakers?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's great to see that we're getting in line with our

Canadian cousins again with a few of these, especially in Digital Government and

Service NL. It seems every now and then, every sitting, we get a bill on the

tweaks here and tweaks there. I'm glad to see that.

It's good, especially when it comes to a lot of the

stuff like a lot of these sites, like the minister referenced and talked about

her parental groups that they talked about. There are a lot of predatory sites

on the Internet, especially when it comes to your personal information. They'll

use every trick in the book to try and get your personal information because

they want to sell you something or scam you in some shape or form. I am glad to

see that we are taking action on a lot of those stuff and it is good.

At the same time, we are also amending it to make it

easier for parents and spouses and people who have elderly parents and things

like that to actually gain access to documentation, especially when you have

family members who are deceased and you are trying to situate their estate or

you're trying to situate their final stuff like that. It is good that we are

bringing ourselves in line but, at the same time, also keeping the predators

away at the door that are trying to get our personal information.

I know the Department of Digital Government and Service

NL, they are the keepers of everyone in this room's personal information. They

have a very daunting task and a very important task to keep that protected on

our behalf. I am glad to see that we are going to get these predatory sites away

from us.

We look at disclosing death certificates from 50 years

ago. A growing thing in this province is people are trying to collect

information from their deceased parents and things like that and trying to

gather all that together and make sure we have people who execute final wills

and testaments, and they need this information to gather all this stuff. We're

going to make it a little bit easier for people, but we're also moving towards

the digital world as well.

You also have the same thing. The Member for Ferryland

did mention marriages that have dissolved years ago and people are trying to

clue up final things from their parents and things like that. I'm glad to see

this and I'm glad to see we're doing more housekeeping in this department. As

someone always says it is Digital Government and Service NL, the department of

everything else. We always have one of these here and I am glad to see this and

I look forward to the Member's closing remarks.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL

speaks now she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service

NL.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to thank the MHA for Ferryland and the MHA

for Labrador West for your comments and I thank everyone and I look forward to

hopefully unanimous approval of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 7 now be read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 7)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

CROCKER:

Presently.

SPEAKER:

Presently.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital

Statistics Act, 2009,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 7)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 11.

SPEAKER:

The

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

ABBOTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly pleased to be here today to introduce

some amendments to a very important piece of legislation, the

Children, Youth and Families Act . The

act was proclaimed in June 2019, and since that time, it has been determined

that some areas could be strengthened to benefit the people that it serves.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We need a mover and seconder to the motion.

ABBOTT:

Oh,

sorry.

SPEAKER:

The

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

seconder.

ABBOTT:

move the discussion of the bill. I need a seconder and it will be the Minister

of Environment and Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

is moved that Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Children, Youth and Families Act, be

now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Children, Youth and Families Act.” (Bill 11)

SPEAKER:

The

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

ABBOTT:

Mr.

Speaker, I won't roll back and I do apologize.

In preparing these amendments, we've consulted with key

stakeholders, particularly the Indigenous governments and organizations, the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Chief Medical

Examiner, the Child Death Review Committee, the Newfoundland and Labrador

College of Social Workers and the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families

Association, all of whom are supportive of the proposed changes. I'll briefly

walk through these here now.

The first amendment concerns the definition of “foster

parent.” This amendment is necessary given the enactment of the new federal Act

respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. The

federal legislation was proclaimed in January 2020 and includes many provisions

related to the well-being of Indigenous children and youth. For example, federal

legislation grants party status in child protection court hearings to care

providers as a way to ensure that Indigenous families and community members can

fully participate in court matters related to an Indigenous child or youth in

their care.

We're certainly supportive of the federal legislation;

however, the definition of “care provider” in the federal legislation is very

similar to our own. As a result, it could be interpreted that foster parents

have equal standing with the child's parent in court matters. Since this is not

the intention of the federal legislation, amending the definition of “foster

parent” in the Children, Youth and

Families Act will help distinguish this role from the “care provider”

definition in the federal legislation. This has been discussed with our key

stakeholder, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, and they

are supportive of this change.

Our department right now has 12 managers throughout the

province with decision-making responsibility for children and youth, and this

concerns the second set of amendments. The amendments here clarify that any

manager will be able to assume the responsibilities of another manager, when

required, for operational reasons. This could include managers taking leave, on

call or when a child or family moves to another location temporarily. This

change confirms in the legislation the practice currently in place within the

department.

There are also times when it becomes necessary to

formally transfer custody from one manager to another; for example, when the

child or family moves permanently to another location in the province. Allowing

transfers of custody between managers by filing notices with the court, instead

of requiring an amended order by the court, will allow this action to be taken

through an administrative approach, rather than a court proceeding. These

amendments will reduce administrative requirements for the department, alleviate

unnecessary pressures on court time and ultimately, and most importantly,

support more timely decisions for children in care.

The next set of amendments deal with Indigenous

representatives. The act now explicitly recognizes the importance of preserving

Indigenous cultural identity, especially for children in care, and helps to

maintain connections to their culture and community. These amendments further

acknowledge that the best interests of Indigenous children and youth are best

addressed through involvement of their Indigenous community in decisions

relating to their care and protection.

One of the ways our act does this is by requiring us to

notify Indigenous governments and organizations when there is a court hearing

related to the custody or supervision of a child or youth from their community.

We do this through Indigenous representatives who are designated by their

Indigenous government or organization. This ensures their representatives are

aware of matters affecting Indigenous children and youth so they can participate

in case planning and allows them to act on their right to apply to be heard in

court on these important matters.

While the involvement of Indigenous representatives is

critically important, we are also aware that the operational demands for

Indigenous representatives can be significant; therefore, they have asked if

more than one representative can be appointed to provide additional support. We

are certainly supportive of this approach. They're recommending change to the

language in the act to allow for more than one Indigenous representative to be

appointed.

The next amendment will support the least intrusive

approach for children requiring protection. In most cases, families with

children in need of protection willingly accept services from the department to

ensure the best interests of their children are met. However, there are also

times when matters related to child protection must be dealt with through the

court system.

For example, there are times when the department may

have concerns for the well-being of a child and these concerns could be resolved

by providing supports and services to the family; however, the family at times

may not accept these services. In these cases, the social worker would like to

make an application to the court seeking an interim order that requires the

family to participate in the services that are being recommended by the

department while the case is making its way through the court system.

This will be an important option for the court, as it

may reduce the need to take more intrusive court action, including removing the

child from the home if their safety cannot be maintained. There is currently no

judicial authority in the legislation which allows the judge to issue an interim

order prior to the conclusion of the hearing. Allowing judges to issue an

interim order in these situations may keep children safe in their family homes

by requiring supports or services in the home while the matter is being heard in

court.

We are also proposing an amendment to the manner in

which Indigenous representatives are served with notices of court matters

related to children and youth from their communities. Currently, these notices

must be served to them in person; however, this sometimes presents logistical

challenges that Indigenous governments and organizations have asked us to

address. The change that is being proposed will allow for more flexibility so

that in addition to the current methods of service, we will also be able to

serve notice via secure email or by leaving a paper copy of the notice in a

sealed envelope at their office. We agree that this approach will make serving

notices more efficient for all involved.

Another change we're proposing is to support Indigenous

governments and organizations in the Schedules to the legislation that list the

Indigenous governments and organizations who may appoint Indigenous

representatives to receive notification of court hearings and participate in

case planning related to Indigenous children and youth.

When the

Children, Youth and Families Act was proclaimed in 2019, the

Schedule

included those organizations with whom the department had a formalized working

relationship. At that time, they included the Miawpukek First Nation, Mushuau

Innu First Nation, Nunatsiavut Government and Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. The

NunatuKavut Community Council has asked to be added to the Schedule. We are

pleased to do so and the

Schedule has been amended effective May 12, 2021. We

continue our relationship with the Qalipu First Nation, and they are aware that

they can also be added to the

Schedule should they choose so in the future.

Some of the amendments we are proposing here today

pertain to the processes that our social workers and their managers follow in

the day-to-day execution of their duties. This relates to sharing of

information. Currently, the Children,

Youth and Families Act requires

the department to establish an information sharing agreement with the Office of

Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Child

Death Review for the purpose of disclosing information to those offices.

However, these entities have statutory authority to receive the information and

are governed by the Access to Information

and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 – ATIPPA.

We are proposing amendments that will confirm the

ability of departmental staff to continue to share information with these

entities, such as the Child and Youth Advocate, the chief medical examiner and

the Child Death Review without needing to establish an information sharing

agreement. These changes will not result in any change in the manner in which

CSSD, my department, shares information with these bodies as they are already

covered by the ATIPPA legislation.

We are also proposing an amendment that will allow for

similar information sharing between my department and the Newfoundland and

Labrador College of Social Workers for the purposes of an investigation or

hearing under the Social Workers Act .

In this case, however, an information sharing agreement may be required as the

college is not governed by ATIPPA, and the department is required to ensure that

every precaution is taken to protect the privacy of the individuals we serve. We

are confident that the amendments being presented today will continue to support

the child and youth-centred, family-focused and culturally responsive direction

of the Children, Youth and Families Act .

This concludes the overview of the amendments that are

being proposed in the bill. I trust you will agree that these changes will help

us strengthen the act that governs the safety, protection and well-being of

vulnerable children and youth in our province, while responding to the needs of

our Indigenous and community partners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for bringing these important

amendments to the House of Assembly. It gives me great honour to be in this

House and represent the people of Placentia West - Bellevue. It is my honour to

represent those people.

On behalf of those people that I represent, I would

like to acknowledge yesterday as National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a very

important day to acknowledge. One of the big initiatives for Indigenous peoples

is that Every Child Matters.

This bill does impact Indigenous children in foster

care. These amendments are really administrative, I think, in their meaning, but

they also streamline a little bit more of the services to help protect the

children. I really do believe that with the presentation today of tabling the

new document about turning over the social services to the Nunatsiavut

Government, I think it's very important they have that autonomy to know what's

best for the children in care and to keep them in their ancestral and native

communities, to not lose any of their heritage or anything like that, but most

of all – and I stress it most of all – it's to protect the children.

Like I said, that's something that we all take

seriously. Both the minister and I have had lengthy discussions, not only in

Estimates, but in a private meeting at his office with his EA and my assistant.

We really had a fulsome discussion on how we can make this system better. Some

of these amendments will certainly reach out to that.

There's nothing really here to pick apart or anything

like that, because like I said, it's about protecting the children. Each one of

these amendments does put extra protections in place for the children,

especially to give the judge an opportunity, if he or she deems fit that a child

needs to be removed until the hearing is completed, then that's something that

is going to protect the child. We here in the Official Opposition do certainly

agree with that.

We agree with these amendments and we'll be supporting

these amendments, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to asking the minister some

questions once we get to Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we'll be supporting these amendments as

well. Mainly, as my colleague from Placentia West - Bellevue has said, it's

about the protection of the children.

As you look through the changes, in many cases it's

about streamlining the process. We know when we hear the term “streamlining” it

can mean many things, but here it's about cutting down on the time to do things,

to take actions and to move a case along. In that situation, protection of

children, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence.

We can see here that this law has been in place for two

years, as noted, and there have been consultations with the various stakeholders

as to where the act might be tightened up or relaxed. That's a significant

indication of the attempt by government to make sure this is successful.

We have heard that Indigenous governments and

organizations can appoint more than one representative. It allows governments

and organizations to deal with cases more flexibly. We can see that the

NunatuKavut Community Council is added as an Indigenous government or

organization covered by the act.

We can see here that amendments will also allow a judge

to issue an interim order prior to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, of a protective

intervention hearing. Considering a preliminary hearing can take up to 10 days

and the final hearing up to another 30 days, this allows for a much more

expedited intervention.

The legislation also allows for a zone manager to

assume the responsibilities for another zone manager. Again, this allows for

more rapid intervention in cases. It allows zone managers to transfer custody or

supervision of a child to another zone manager without having to file an amended

order to the court in most cases; two to three days that would take to do that.

When you're dealing with the health and well-being of a child, time matters.

One amendment,

section 94, removes the requirement of

an information sharing agreement with the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate, chief medical officer and the Child Death Review Committee, as they're

governed by ATIPP; certainly here, the ability of the authority to share

information with the College of Social Workers for the purpose of an

intervention. So privacy is protected but the well-being of children is looked

after as well. The legislation is a product of ongoing discussions. It reduces

red tape. In this case, it literally cuts down on the amount of time and it's

primarily concerned with the well-being of children.

I will say this: As a former teacher, I can tell you

that a lot of the times what we deal with is just the time to get things done,

the paperwork and the information sharing. I certainly would like to also see

that information – and not just looking at the College of Social Workers, but

also school councillors and maybe even school administrators.

As a teacher, I don't always need to be brought in to

the intimate details of a situation, but I do believe that in many cases a lot

of the children who are in care are also students in the school system. It's

good to streamline the process within the school system so that school

councillors – those who are in that exceptional role of care and privacy – are

brought into the fold.

I can tell you from talking to school councillors that

is not always the case. So if there's a way of proposing – if I can make one

suggestion, it would be to make sure that the school system is brought into this

quickly. Keep in mind it's often teachers who will see the first signs of

trouble or concern and will bring it to government or to the department. After

that, they are left out of loop as to what steps are being taken.

With that in mind, certainly, we'll support this bill.

It's good work. It sets a good model for the future when we deal with any

legislation, but, certainly, when it comes to the protection of children, Mr.

Speaker, that kind of outreach, that kind of collaboration, consultation is

absolutely essential in cutting down on the amount of time so that children are

in a protected space and that their health, well-being, mental health and

physical health, are foremost and utmost in the minds of everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want to speak too long, other than I do want to

speak to this very important bill and the changes