PDF Version

November 3, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 32

The

House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

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

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Trimper):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Chair.

With the

consent of the House, I would ask that we pause Committee on Bill 26 and move to

Bill 27.

CHAIR:

Does the hon. Government

House Leader have leave to proceed with Bill 27.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

CHAIR:

Leave is granted.

Order,

please!

We will

now proceed with the consideration of Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act,

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012.” (Bill 27)

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Chair, the act talks about

extending the dispensing of drugs or medicines by registered nurses or,

actually, it includes the licensed practical nurses now, under the supervision

of a regional health authority.

Are

there any plans to move that outside of the health authorities?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

No.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Okay. Good answer.

Chair,

as we move into the new model of the Health Accord, when we talk about community

health centres, I'm just wondering about where those maybe have practices – we

talk about the full scope and range of practices with physicians, nurses, LPNs

and others, they may or may not, necessarily, be under the jurisdiction of a

regional health authority.

question is related to that new model as it comes in place. This legislation

won't allow, for example, a LNP, in that circumstance, to do this, right?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Yes. It won't. I'm not trying to be unnecessarily cryptic.

This is

a start. The RHAs have existing protocols in place for dispensing for RNs. These

would simply be altered, if the House approves this, to allow LPNs to follow

those very same protocols; it's within their scope of practice. Once the bugs

from that have been worked out, then it would be possible later to change the

scope, should there be an operational need to do that, for community care teams.

CHAIR:

The Member for Stephenville -

Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Chair, again, it's a good piece of legislation.

I ask

the minister: Again, on the issue with the long-term care facilities or personal

care homes, does this apply in personal care homes? I guess the answer is no.

CHAIR:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

You are correct, Sir. No, it

doesn't.

Again,

this is a start. We have robust protocols that we know and understand through

the Department of Health and the regional health authorities, as you would

remember from your time there, to deal with dispensing. It is really aimed at

those clinics where the licensed practical nurse might actually be the only

practitioner available on site and the dispensing will be a short-term,

temporizing measure to get them to fill a prescription or seek advice from

further care providers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

So, as you suggested, every

type of facility that a regional health authority has responsibility for,

whether it be a small clinic or anything or a long-term care facility operated

by a regional health authority, this legislation would apply, correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Yes, that is correct.

CHAIR:

Any further speakers?

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT:

In consultations for changing

this bill, did the pharmacists have any concerns with the broadening of the

scope for the LPNs?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

None at all. The pharmacists have read this, they're happy with it and they

support it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

There was some comment that this would greatly help rural situations. Can you

elaborate on how it helps the rural situations?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Certainly.

With the

use of, for example, virtual consults and a diagnosis made by a practitioner off

site in a small clinic, an LPN might be the only skilled health care

practitioner on the premises. This will make their workload simpler. Otherwise,

in my day, for example, up in Labrador-Grenfell, I would have had to seek a

phone authorization and then they'd actually have to call somebody in to

physically give them the pills to allow the patient to take them out of the

building.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

The Health Accord talks about teams and, obviously, LPNs are a part of it. So,

in the dispensing of drugs, is there going to be some kind of a pecking order or

is it basically on a needs basis, I guess?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Again, within the constraints of RHA-run facilities, it would be done on a needs

basis. If there were a multitude of providers who have this in their skill set,

then whoever was dealing with the client or patient at the time could simply do

this as part of their visit, their consult. If that happens to be an LPN, that's

extended the number of providers who can provide this service with regards to

dispensing of medications.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Question: What groups have been consulted on this change?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

This is particularly a matter

for the Pharmacy Board which are the regulators of the practice of pharmacy and

the College of Licensed Practical Nurses. They were the folk who were involved

in this.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

So I

take that as the department did no consultation with any groups, for example,

like the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Medical Association and/or the

Nurses' Union?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Chair.

It is

normally the case that scopes of practice for self-regulating profession are a

matter for internal discussion and, in this case, because it was effected by the

Pharmacy Act, obviously we spoke to the Pharmacy Board. We don't usually ask

their permission or involve other disciplines unless there is a clear regulatory

or legal requirement to do so.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Are

there any limits to the types or amounts of medications that can be dispensed?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

It will effectively be the

same range of medications as those that would be dispensed by an RN. The

quantities will be – these are temporizing measures. These are to buy time. It's

not anticipated that there would be large quantities of medication. Most RHA

protocols provide for prepackaged with one or two doses in them. This would be

to tide them over until they could get a regular prescription filled or have

further treatment by another care provider somewhere else.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Education on this has been mandatory since 2012. Are there any refresher courses

or ongoing education that is required? What about LPNs that have been in the

system prior to 2012?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Chair.

When the

scopes of practice for LPNs were changed, there was an upskilling process that

went on to include what was colloquially referred to as the medication module.

All LPNs currently practising in this province as LPNs are required to have that

or have had that as part of their training if they graduated since that time.

The

issue of ongoing professional development is partly addressed in here by the

ability of the college to set a quality assurance program and maintain

educational standards. But there's no formal mechanism about refreshers for any

element of their practice. This is a matter for a self-regulating profession to

set for itself.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair and thank

you, Minister.

It says:

“… when practising with the approval and under the general supervision of the

regional health authority.”

So can

they dispense in private community physicians' offices?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

No.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers in this Committee?

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Chair.

One

quick commentary or question and maybe it goes without saying. My colleague for

Stephenville - Port au Port said it was a good piece of legislation. Indeed, it

is a good piece of legislation. I can envision the Bonavista hospital, which

serves over 8,000 people, and you have people that may be travelling upwards of

45 minutes. The dispensing of drugs to these people who will not able to access

a pharmacy is a great thing.

It is a

good thing in that part of the district, but I often think that the consultation

with the patient sometimes – and it might seem like an obvious ask in the

regulation, but I know that sometimes we have appointments where, in Bonavista,

they have a specialist appointment arranged for 9 o'clock in St. John's and I

know that they're pulling out of Bonavista area at 4:40 or 5 in the morning –

not often, but on occasion.

So the

only thing I would ask there, even though as blatantly obvious as it may seem,

will it be in the regulations that they will consult with the physician that if

somebody is 30-40 minutes away from where drugs are dispensed by a pharmacy that

they will consult with them to find out how much medication they would need,

that they can comfortably make sure that they can get to the pharmacy? They may

be rare exceptions, but at least a consultation would be important in those

cases.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you.

That's a

good point. To explain the process, that consultation would be required in

actual fact before the dispensing took place because the LPN is not prescribing,

they are dispensing on the authority of a prescribing-able professional. So that

discussion would be part of the dispensing process so that they would know how

much to give and so on.

The LPNs

are not prescribing; they are administering. They can do that already. What

we're adding with this amendment is the ability to dispense an amount that has

been discussed with a prescriber in advance.

CHAIR:

Any further speakers?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, just wondering – you've said in commentary to the Member for Topsail -

Paradise that this is like a short-term measure to get you through in the pinch,

so to speak. The amounts would probably be like a little blister pack with a

couple of pills in it or whatever, as opposed to a full prescription and so on.

But if

this is passed, what would prevent the regional health authorities and so on

from sort of expanding upon this and having this go on in perpetuity, if you

will? That now, all of a sudden, you have an LPN in an area and that's all you

have and they're just going to do it all because they can.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Chair.

This

isn't addressed directly in the act. The intent, however, between the College of

Licensed Practical Nurses and the Pharmacy Board was that this would be a

short-term measure, episodic one-off. The continuity of care in a particular

area is of concern to us and is being addressed by other mechanisms. It's not

specifically addressed in this act.

It may

be addressed in the protocols and policies that exist at the regional health

authority level because, by and large, it is their policies that limit the

amount of medication to be dispensed. But, as in my comments to the previous

question, the amounts to be dispensed would be directed by a prescribing

practitioner.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the bill?

I thank

you for your participation.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Pharmacy

Act, 2012.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 27

carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed Bill 27 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Chair.

With

consent of the House, I would request that we stay in Committee and move to Bill

CHAIR:

Does the hon. the Government

House Leader have consent?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

We can proceed.

Thank

you.

We are

now discussing Bill 26.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.” (Bill 26)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

It's

been a wild morning.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Already.

P. DINN:

Already, yes.

A couple

of questions here: What was the extent of consultations with the College of

Licensed Practical Nurses?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

This was significant. This

paper has its roots prior to COVID and the delays have been partly due to

difficulties with scheduling meetings, given conflicting commitments from the

staff also involved in this. So it's been lengthy and it's been detailed and it

has been also, as I say, involved in connection with the previous bill, the

pharmacists.

But

we've had a lengthy discussion with the College of Licensed Practical Nurses and

they're certainly very keen to see this move.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Did you

consult with any other health care groups outside of the College of Licensed

Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Again, I would reference an answer I gave earlier. This is a self-regulating

profession by and large. We do not consult with regulators outside of that

unless there is a direct impact such as there were with the previous bill we

considered. So this has been principally a discussion between the department and

the College of Licensed Practical Nurses.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Are all

of the changes proposed reflective of the wishes of the College of Licensed

Practical Nurses?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Yes.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you.

Did they

request any changes that were not included in this bill?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

None that I'm aware of at this time, Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Clause 3

adds a new function to the college to administer a quality assurance program to

enhance public protection and accountability.

Do the

LPNs currently have a quality assurance program and, if not, do the College of

Licensed Practical Nurses require any additional resources to administer a

quality assurance program?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

They do not have one established in regulation. They may have had informal

counselling processes, but this is kind of a development we've seen in other

self-regulating professions where, rather than going from nothing to a full

disciplinary panel to deal with an issue, a quality assurance program can be

used to educate and inform and perhaps ultimately avoid a full disciplinary

panel.

We have

not been advised by the college of any external resources that they would

require from us and they've given us to understand that they can do this from

within.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

What is

the process to deal with a complaint relating to LPN conduct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Chair.

Quality

assurance is kind of like a proactive approach. The complaints procedure for the

College of Licensed Practical Nurses is a more formal approach and is already

laid down in their current policies and regulation. That is not affected

necessarily by this, except to say that a quality assurance process within that

would be able to perhaps avoid such a more obvious issue process.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you.

What is

the process to report to the registrar conduct deserving of sanction?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

I don't have that detail in

front of me. My understanding is the information required by the public is

available on their website.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Another question here: In

terms of the licensed practical nurses, how does this affect or is this a

positive or a pro when it comes to labour mobility to other jurisdiction?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

I have not been advised of

any changes that people in the college have predicted one way or another based

on the introduction of these amendments.

CHAIR:

Any further speakers to Bill

26,

An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act?

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 to 13.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 to 13 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

I have a couple of questions.

The

minister had referred to the duty to report. I know that within the education

profession if we were looking at an assessment or we had seen something untoward

that we would report, we would have an obligation to report to the person who

may have committed the infraction, whether it be a courtesy or ethics.

You may

not be able to speak to that at this legislative level, but I just wanted to

make sure that I spoke to that. One would think that the most appropriate would

be to inform the person who may have been seen or considered to be in the

untoward act.

Would

that be something that would be considered in this situation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

I think the exact mechanisms

around a duty to report would be a part of an education process and, in that,

done by the college; those kind of details would be formally address. I wouldn't

be able to speak to that in any detail at the moment because, should this go

ahead, the college would then be in a position to make recommendations about how

to do that and in what order.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Quality assurance is always a

good thing in every organization and institution.

It had

mentioned that you may be utilizing the RNs in this quality assurance program

with the LNPs. We know the load that the current RNs carry.

Would

there be any remuneration considered in this for RNs and other officials that

would be a part of this quality assurance team?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

That's a good question.

I think,

to be honest, it would be one that the college would determine as to whether or

not it was able, prepared to compensate folk who participated in that. I

wouldn't like to speak on their behalf; it's a decision they would make.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Understandable.

It also

mentions that all records are confidential. I would assume that if you were in

an organization and someone perceives something untoward, those records would be

accessible by the person who is considered to have done something that was

misaligned with the system or untoward, that they would have access to every

document that would be – or the alleged act would be associated with.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

I think that refers to confidentiality outside of the process, Chair. There is

an obligation to report results of disciplinary tribunals, particularly in the

situation where a significant penalty has been imposed by the college. The

confidentiality piece there would be around what was released publicly.

Certainly, internally, with a complaints process, that is a quasi-judicial one,

or can be, and is laid down in their regulations. Who shares what with whom is a

matter for the college and natural justice, as well as the legal profession to

opine on. We wouldn't stipulate that in here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Minister.

noticed that the quality assurance committee would have immunity. I'm trying to

envision is when you have a group – of which this LPN, I'm assuming their

employment would be at risk, that would be there, that they would have immunity

against, I guess, any persecution or rebuttal of which the LPN would have. What

recourse would the LPN have in this particular situation, if something untoward

or their employment was being terminated?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

That really speaks more to

the disciplinary piece than the quality assurance.

The idea

of quality assurance is to educate, inform and correct. In the situation where

disciplinary action was taken, there is always an appeal mechanism. What that

is, through the College of Licensed Practical Nurses, I wouldn't be able to

stipulate; but every self-regulating profession has an appeal mechanism about

decisions of a disciplinary tribunal.

CHAIR:

Further speakers?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

I would

like to propose several amendments – oh, no, we're not gone to the next clause,

are we?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

P. DINN:

Good, thank you.

CHAIR:

No, you may proceed and I

understand there's leave for the Member to proceed with several amendments at

the same time.

Thank

you, proceed.

P. DINN:

Yes, they're all very

similarly related. So I'll read them to the record. There are six.

Speaker,

I move that clause 6 of the bill be amended in the proposed subsection 12(2) as

follows: (1) by deleting the words “he or she has” and substituting instead the

words “they have”; (2) by deleting the words “he or she is not” and substituting

instead the words “they are not.”

Also,

Speaker, I move that clause 8 of the bill be amended in the proposed subsection

14.1(3) by deleting the words “he or she” and substituting instead the word

“they.”

Speaker,

I move that clause 10 of the bill be amended in the proposed

section 29.2 by

deleting the words “his or her” and substituting instead the word “their.”

Speaker,

I move that clause 10 of the bill be amended in proposed

section 29.3 as

follows: In subsection 29.3(1), by deleting the words “his or her” and

substituting the word “their”; in paragraph 29.3(3)(b), by deleting the words

“his or her” and by substituting the word “their”; in subparagraph

29.3(3)(d)(iv), by deleting the words “his or her” and by substituting the word

“their”; in subparagraph 29.3(3)(d)(vi), by deleting the words “his or her” and

by substituting the word “their”; in subparagraph 29.3(3)(d)(vii), by deleting

the words “his or her” and by substituting the word “their” and by deleting the

words “he or she is” and by substituting the words “they are”; and in subsection

29.3(6), by deleting the words “he or she provides” and by substituting the

words “they provide” and by deleting the words “him or her” and by substituting

the word “them.”

Speaker,

I move that clause 13 of the bill be amended in proposed paragraph 33(

a) by

deleting the words “himself or herself” and by substituting instead the word

“themselves.”

Finally,

I move that clause 6 of the bill be amended in proposed subsection 12(1) as

follows: (1) by deleting the words “he or she” and substituting instead the word

“they”; (2) by deleting the word “has” and substituting instead the word “have”;

and (3) by deleting the word “meets” and substituting instead the word “meet.”

Those

are the six amendments proposed all together, all dealing with very similar

issues in terms of gender neutrality within the act, as we well know there are

individuals out there who identify as non-binary so I think these amendments

would help in (inaudible ) – and that would be seconded by the Member for Terra

Nova.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Committee will now recess to consider the proposed amendments to Bill 26,

An Act

To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Committee have reviewed the proposed amendments to Bill 26,

An Act to Amend the

Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, and find that all the amendments are in

order.

Debate

will now proceed on the amendments.

recognize the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

I'm

pleased that they're in order. Hopefully, it will all be voted as approved as

well.

I think

it's a reflection of our times forward. In this House, as we know, we have

disposed of the salutation of Mister or Madam Chair; something I find hard to do

because it's a sign of respect. We grew up saying Sir or Madam; however, in our

society there are people that certainly do identify as non-binary. I think our

legislation going forward – all legislation I'm sure – would have to be looked

at in terms of going forward to ensure that the legislation reflects society.

I'm glad to see that.

This

piece of legislation, I think we're already well aware that it's a good piece of

legislation for our licensed practical nurses. I look forward to it all being

approved and moving forward.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the amendments?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Chair.

I thank

the Member opposite for the amendments. I think this is the second time now

we've done this in Committee. We know this is a change that's going to have to

happen in all acts going forward. I can assure you that going forward this will

be a lens that will be put on all acts. I know there's a whole lot of stuff that

needs to be changed, previously, but at least going forward we'll make sure that

this lens is applied.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

further speakers to the amendments?

Is this

House in support of the amendments as tabled?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

amendments are carried.

motion, amendments carried.

CHAIR:

Any further speakers to the bill?

Seeing

no further speakers, shall clauses 2 through 13, as amended, carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

clauses as amended are carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 13, as amended, carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

enacting clause carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Licensed

Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

title is carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

carried with amendments?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise and report Bills 26 as amended and 27.

CHAIR:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair and report on Bill 26 with amendments and Bill 27

without amendments.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have been very busy. They have considered the matters to

them referred and have directed me to report, first of all, Bill 26 with

amendments and also I would like to report that Bill 27 has been carried without

amendment.

SPEAKER:

The Deputy Chair of the

Committee of the Whole have reported that the Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have directed that Bill 26 be carried with

amendments and Bill 27 without amendment.

When

shall the reports be received?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bills be read a third time?

S. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered

read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move

seconded, by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendments to Bill 26

be now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the amendments now be read a first time.

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.

CLERK:

First reading of the

amendments to Bill 26.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the amendments to Bill 26

be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the amendments now be read a second time.

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.

CLERK:

Second reading of the

amendments to Bill 26.

motion, amendments read a first and second time.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 7, third reading of Bill 36,

An Act Respecting The

Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The

Province.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 36,

An Act Respecting

The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of the

Province be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The

Province. (Bill 36)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The

Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 11, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act, Bill 24.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 24, An

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

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 24,

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

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.” (Bill 24)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to speak in this House to Bill 24,

An Act to Amend the Corporations

Act. The Corporations Act prescribes

the requirements for incorporation, governance and operation of corporations in

this province; management of corporations is a shared responsibility between the

provincial government and the federal government, Speaker.

These

amendments would result in enhancing law enforcement efforts to counter the

misuse of corporations and removing the residency requirements for corporation

directors.

December 2017, Finance ministers from throughout Canada agreed to pursue

legislative amendments requiring all corporations to hold accurate, beneficial

ownership information which would be available to law enforcement, tax and other

authorities upon request. A joint federal-provincial-territorial commitment in

June 2019 reaffirmed these intentions to work together on cross-government,

anti-money laundering best practices.

The

first phase is to amend legislation to require corporations to maintain a

register of individuals with significant control, i.e. beneficial owners. To

date, six jurisdictions including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI,

All other jurisdictions have committed to doing so.

Information pertaining to beneficial ownership or individuals with significant

influence or control is difficult to collect or obtain. Yet, the availability of

such information is crucial for law enforcement, tax and other authorities to

identify persons who may be implicated in suspicious or illegal activities. This

amendment to the Corporations Act will

strengthen law enforcement's access to such information, Speaker.

The

second amendment will remove current residency requirements for incorporation.

Section 174 of the Corporations Act

restricts a temporary resident from incorporating a business on their own or

with other temporary residents. Digital Government and Service NL has heard from

temporary residents, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and Memorial

University that this restriction is an obstacle to entrepreneurial pursuits by

residents in this province who do not yet have permanent residency status.

Nine

Canadian jurisdictions including BC, PEI, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, New

Brunswick, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have previously

removed residency requirements for incorporation. Neither have identified any

negative impacts from the removal of these residency requirements. The removal

of these requirements, Speaker, reduce barriers for newcomers to start

businesses here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look

forward to addressing questions from Members in Committee.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

First of

all, I'd like to thank the minister and her department for the briefing that we

received, I'm going to say, probably a couple of weeks ago now on this. They did

a great job on it and glad to see it come. Hopefully, we'll get through all the

legislation that we have proposed here.

Again,

great to represent the District of Ferryland here. I thank the residents and the

constituents for voting me in, I certainly appreciate that. Every chance I get,

I'm going to remind them and thank them.

Starting

with the bill, this bill makes two changes to the

Corporations Act . It removes the residency requirements for

directors and increases the transparency of beneficial ownership of

corporations.

Currently, at least 25 per cent of directors of a corporation registered in this

province must be resident Canadians,

where a resident Canadian is defined as: “(

i) a Canadian citizen ordinarily

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

who is a member of a prescribed class of persons, or (iii) a permanent resident

within the meaning of the Immigration and

Refugee Protection Act … and ordinarily resident in Canada, except a

permanent resident who has been ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one

year after the time at which he or she first became eligible to apply for

Canadian citizenship, (iv) an international entrepreneur, or (

v) an

international graduate entrepreneur.”

This

provision means that a temporary resident who wishes to start a business must

find a Canadian to sit on their board. This can be a significant obstacle for

newcomers to our communities, international students or other temporary

residents who want to start a business, especially when a group of temporary

residents who want to work together to start a business, like the case of

international workers who are here studying at businesses.

This

bill will improve this requirement from the legislation and, thus, make it

easier for persons who wish to start a business to do so. In making this

legislative change, we'll be following the eight other Canadian provinces who

have already done so. I heard the minister say six, but we're saying eight. It's

important that, as a province, we're open to business growth and we are

encouraging of newcomers who wish to start a new business. If we do not make

this change we will be at a competitive disadvantage and temporary residents may

choose other Canadian provinces to live and work in.

The

second change of this bill is to increase the transparency of beneficial

ownership of corporations. These changes are being implemented along with the

federal government and all provincial governments. All governments in this

country are implementing these changes in an effort to strengthen the

investigations as it relates to money laundering and financing of terrorist

activity.

So what

is this beneficial ownership all about? It is defined in

section 45.1 in the

bill before us and it closely follows the definition provided by the Department

of Finance Canada, which is: “Beneficial owners are the individuals who directly

or indirectly own or control 25% or more of a corporation or an entity other

than a corporation. In the case of a trust, they are the trustees, the known

beneficiaries and the settlors of the trust. If the trust is a widely held trust

or a publicly traded trust, they are the trustees and all persons who own or

control, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of the units of the trust.

“Beneficial owners cannot be other corporations, trusts or other entities. They

must be the individuals who are the owners or controllers of the entity. It is

important to consider and review the names found on official documentation in

order to confirm the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information. It may be

necessary to search through many layers of information in order to confirm who

are the beneficial owners, as the names found on official documentation may not

always reflect the actual beneficial owners.”

The

federal government, with the support of all Canadian provinces, is making

changes so that the law enforcement can investigate and see who is behind the

ownership of corporations if needed. According to the federal Department of

Finance, “The concealment of beneficial ownership information is a technique

used in money laundering and terrorist activity financing schemes. Identifying

beneficial ownership removes the anonymity of the individuals behind the

transactions and account activities, which is a key component of Canada's

anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime.”

collecting financial information and confirming its accuracy, reporting entities

“are performing an important step to mitigate the risk of money laundering and

terrorist activity financing, and ultimately, to protect the integrity of

Canada's financial system.”

British

Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia and the federal government

have already implemented this legislation. What does this legislation do? This

legislation requires a corporation to maintain a list referred to as a register

of people who are considered to be beneficial owners or have significant control

over the corporation. If this information is requested by an investigative body,

police agency or regulatory, it must then be turned over. The legislation we are

debating today also contains within it provisions for the protection of privacy

and fines for enforcement.

I do

have some questions when we do get into Committee and certainly look forward to

asking those questions.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

examining this legislation, Speaker, I think my colleague, the Member for

Ferryland, has quite aptly described the two changes that are being proposed by

government with respect to the residency and the beneficial ownership. Those two

changes, there are certain things that we need to look at.

First of

all, with respect to the residency requirement, I think that is a good thing.

Now, we are going to see any temporary residents who wish to start a business

here in our country – and in our province in particular – will not face the

obstacles that previously, with the previous legislation, they did. As the

Member for Ferryland had indicated, currently at least 25 per cent of directors

of a corporation must be resident Canadians.

So what

we're seeing now is that there is more encouragement of students, for example,

perhaps international students, who may be studying here from abroad; they may

be studying business. I think that's a good thing. They may want to start their

own business together and now they will not face that obstacle.

This is

good because it encourages business development and it encourages growth. I

guess when we look at the Corporations Act

perhaps it might be beneficial just to look at the corporation in general. The

corporation is the most important form of a business organization. It is the

predominant business vehicle in our modern commerce. We know that it is a

separate legal entity. We also know that the cornerstone of corporation law

focuses on limited liability. I think that is important to recognize the

importance of corporation in our commerce today.

We know

that corporations consist of shareholders and directors. When we're looking at,

first, removing the residency requirement of directors, I think it is important

to know that directors are really charged with the management functions, for

example, in a corporation, like policy development. We also know that directors

are elected by shareholders. We know that directors have important duties,

fiduciary duty for example. We also know that they have very wide and expansive

liabilities and they're exposed to a broad range of liabilities regarding the

business corporation.

Just

putting it in that context I think is important to understand why this residency

requirement is a very welcome – removal is very welcome because we are going to

now be supporting the development of business growth. It puts us, as well, at a

competitive disadvantage if we don't make the change. Temporary residents may

opt to go to other provinces because we know, as has been pointed out, that

there are at least six or more Canadian provinces that have already implemented

this legislative change.

I think

that with respect to the residency requirement, that's a good thing. I think it

is a progressive change and it's certainly necessary to remove obstacles like

that when we see legislation having those obstacles.

The

second legislative change that is being proposed is with respect to beneficial

ownership and that this legislative change will increase transparency. As we've

stated, and even yesterday in debate I was discussing another piece of

legislation which was looking at increasing transparency. Transparency is always

very important. I think we see, perhaps, the lack of it at times in our policies

and in our legislation. When we don't have that, we have less accountability.

That's not a good thing.

beneficial ownership really goes to the issue of money laundering and perhaps

any kind of financing of terrorist activity. We know when we look at money

laundering – for example, I looked at some of the information that the United

Nations had back in 2011 with respect to money laundering in Canada. We are

estimated to be between $5 billion and $15 billion money laundering in Canada,

according to the UN. Estimated to be between that number – $5 billion and $15

billion.

We know

what money laundering is. It's the false reporting of income from criminal

activity as income from legitimate business. So when we see that amount of money

that goes into money laundering, and whether it's funnelled through terrorist

activity, any kind of legislation like this which addresses enforcement, which

hopefully will increase and enhance law enforcement efforts and measures, is a

good thing.

So we

see that with respect to the beneficial ownership piece, this bill will increase

the transparency of this kind of ownership. We know that the federal government

and all of the provincial governments are looking to doing this. All governments

in this country are implementing these changes so as to strengthen

investigation.

colleague, the Member for Ferryland, had indicated what exactly beneficial

ownership is. We know what it is and we know that we have to look at the

concealment of beneficial ownership information. It's a technique used in money

laundering and terrorist activity. This will remove that anonymity. It will take

away the anonymity of individuals who have as their intent to engage in money

laundering or any kind of financing of terrorist activity.

It would

be my argument this is a good thing. What will happen now with this legislation

is we will see the ability to collect information about ownership and to confirm

its accuracy and to also report entities who are involved in performing an

important step to mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist activity

financing.

We know

that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia and the federal

government have already implemented this legislation. I think it's a good thing

that this legislation will now require corporations to have a registry list. I

think that's a good thing. Again, it's going to enhance the measures to try to

target and combat money laundering. I think that's really important.

These

beneficial owners, from what we understand they can have significant control

over a corporation. So now we're going to see investigative bodies, whether it's

police agencies or any kind of other regulatory body, if they want this

information, they want to know the ownership, have the ownership information

divulged or turned over to them, now they will have that power to do it. If it's

requested it will have to be turned over to those authorities. Again, I think

that's an important enhanced measure to combat this serious problem. We know

corporate crime is a very serious matter in our country; it's very, very tough

to combat and to investigate. So if any kind of legislation like this supports

us in those efforts to limit and mitigate these problems, I think it's a good

thing.

Now one

thing I think is important, I note that the legislation does mention that there

are provisions for the protection of privacy and there are fines for

enforcement. I don't know what they are. I'm looking forward to finding out what

that is, what kind of protections will be in place to protect people's privacy.

We have to be very, very mindful of that when we're giving expansive powers to

different agencies, whether they're investigative bodies.

There

has to be with that power also safeguards with respect to privacy. They have to

be limited, there's no question about that. I look forward to finding out what

those limits will be. As well as enforcement. What are the fines and how are

those fines going to be enforced? We've seen it time and time again, without

proper enforcement of laws, then they're really toothless, they don't have any

effect. It's very important to see what kinds of enforcement measures are going

to be in place to actually give this legislation some of its power.

With

that, Speaker, I think those are some of the concerns and some of the issues

that I wanted to address. I think that in substance it's a very good piece of

legislation and I'm very supportive of it. But, again, I would like to have

those issues with respect to privacy and enforcement – and we can certainly get

at that at in Committee.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Speaker.

general, I do support the legislation. I'll be voting for it. I do have a couple

of points or questions or issues, whatever you want to call it, one from each of

the changes, because there are two significant changes here in this piece of

legislation.

The

first one I just want to speak to is the issue around significant ownership, or

whatever the term is here, of the directors and ownership in these corporations,

that there has to be a list provided of who these people are. That's a good

thing. As my colleague for Harbour Main talked about the whole issues around

money laundering, organized crime, terrorism and all that stuff, obviously,

that's important. Anything we can do to enhance law enforcement efforts to

combat those things, I think it would be prudent for us to do so. Obviously, as

the minister has indicated, our federal government has endorsed this and a

number of provinces have. Those who haven't are going to, from what I

understand. I support that aspect of it.

understanding of it is that the information on these directors or substantial

owners is something that law enforcement can request – or I should say demand

really, I suppose, not request – if there was an investigation and so on. What I

don't see here, and I know it's not necessarily really that issue, but more

public disclosure of these people.

The

reason why I say that, I look back at, as an example – I'll just use this as an

example; I'm not using it to beat anybody up but it is what it is. I look at the

example of the Canopy Growth deal and that numbered corporation that allegedly

resided on Plank Road – according to CBC or whoever investigated it in the media

– that allegedly benefited from the Canopy Growth deal which involves public

money, a deal with the provincial government and impacting public money.

Whether

it's a direct grant or any dealings with the government on any kind of a deal,

you had a numbered corporation and there's no transparency. The people had no

idea who was involved. There was lots of speculation out there at the time, but

the people had no idea who was being dealt with, who was potentially benefiting

from this.

So when

we talk about openness and transparency, which are great buzzwords, and while

this is a good piece of legislation from the perspective of organized crime and

allowing law enforcement to do their job, I'm disappointed to see that we have

not addressed the issue of public disclosure of who these people are.

Not

necessarily in general. If you own a corporation and you're doing business

privately, arguably, it's none of my business who the substantial owners are.

But if those businesses, those corporations, are benefiting from my taxpayers'

dollars and yours, Speaker, then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have

the right to know who these individuals are who are receiving money from the

public till, who are benefiting from government contracts and so on, benefiting

from the province, from the taxpayer.

That is

not addressed. What is being addressed here is law enforcement in some sort of a

sting or investigation or whatever the case might be, being able to obtain those

records if they required it. But the general public are left in the dark as to

who these people are.

If we

want to be truly open and transparent, like we say all the time, when it comes

to the public interest, public taxpayers' dollars and so on, then I think we

need to go a little further in our amendments. We need to have something in here

that says that should a corporation be benefiting from any government funding,

grants or programs, or should they be engaged in any business dealings with the

provincial government that's going to have any kind of an impact on the

taxpayer, then the names of the persons involved in those corporation, a lot of

them numbered corporations, those names should be public information so that we

know who's wheeling and dealing in this province and who's benefiting from the

public purse.

That's

not there and that's very disappointing. So I do support that

section of the

bill from the perspective of your organized crime – support it 100 per cent. But

it didn't go far enough in public disclosure in cases where that corporation is

benefiting from the public purse. So that's my first point.

The

other point I just want to make – the other side of this bill, the other

significant piece of this bill: the residency rule. I understand why it's being

done. I understand that we don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage with

other provinces. We're really ramping up, the government has, its efforts in

terms of immigration, trying to grow our population, for obvious reasons why we

need to do that. I'm very supportive of that.

understand that if we have newcomers to our province who we want to welcome and

we want them to stay here, we want them to raise families – and, ultimately, we

want them to do it because we want them to pay taxes. I mean, that's the cold,

hard reality of it. We need more people paying taxes in order to support those

who are not paying taxes and support the services that we require as a province.

That's the reality of that.

should be encouraging people to stay here when they come, obviously. I can

absolutely understand why this could be a barrier, particularly, if we had

students coming to Memorial University, perhaps studying business and so on.

They want to be entrepreneurs; they want to contribute to our economy. That's a

good thing. I think we all support that; that's what we want. We want to try to

remove barriers, so I'm not against it from that point of view – I'm really not.

The only

thing I just question to some degree is – we actually had a bill come before the

House maybe a year or two ago that was similar to this one. It had the same

thing and it was to do with allowing, I think, landed immigrants, or whatever

the case might be, to actually operate businesses. There were some changes that

were made but it didn't go this far. We've just gone a little further.

Again,

I'm not against it in principle but I just wonder – and I'm just asking out loud

– are we opening ourselves up for anything in terms of, I don't know, those who

might come in, start a business, incorporate and are not from here. I'm not

talking about immigrants or MUN students. I'm not talking about that, but

somebody just to come in from Nova Scotia, whatever and open up a business, not

necessarily operate in the greatest way, leave a bunch of people hanging high

and dry and then just leave the province because there's nobody attached to that

corporation. They have no ties to Newfoundland, they're not living here so they

come on, they do what they do and just take off so to speak, without necessarily

that accountability or that want and that need to succeed and do right by their

neighbours and people here.

Obviously if you are living here, then you're invested in this community. If you

start a business you're planning on staying here. You want to be successful; you

want to grow your business. You contribute to the community overall because you

have those ties; this is where you are, this is where your family is and so on.

Whereas you could have people now, especially – you can run a business from

anywhere on earth now with IT and everything else, a lot of stuff can be done.

That's

the only thing – I'm just asking. I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom or that

it's going to be opening ourselves up for major problems. I'm not saying that. I

honestly don't know. That's not what I'm suggesting; I'm just asking out loud

the concern around people from outside the province with no ties to the

province. They don't have to be an immigrant. It could someone who is living in

Halifax and they just open up shop, they operate out of Halifax and they benefit

from our province. All the money that's being derived is not going back into our

economy; it's all going electronically transferred to their bank accounts, so

they're spending all their money in Halifax somewhere, not in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That's

just sort of the counterpoints to this initiative that, again, if we're simply

trying to target MUN students, international students and people who come here

that want to open a business while they're getting their citizenship, I'm all

for it. I wish there was a way to do that and accomplish that while at the same

time preventing, necessarily someone who doesn't live here, has no intentions of

living here, starting up a business, benefiting from our province and taking all

the money and all the benefits out of Newfoundland and we don't gain anything.

All they're going to do is compete with locals and water down their business so

they can take the benefits and off to some other province somewhere to the

detriment of our own citizens that are living and paying taxes here.

That's

my only concern. Maybe it's unfounded; maybe it won't be a big deal. I'm sure

this has all – maybe the pros outweigh the cons; I'm not saying they don't, but

I am just putting it out there as a question and a concern as opposed to an

outright criticism.

With

that said, I still will support the bill.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm only

going to take a couple of minutes. Again, I think we support the change.

Anything we can do to help businesses start up is always a good thing.

But I

would like to point out that right now, unfortunately, some of the regulations

we have in place as a government are prohibiting small businesses and new

businesses from actually being able to bid on government contracts. Many

tenders, proposals or RFPs issued by government require a business to have

experience and sometimes a points system is used. If you have no prior

experience on a project you will fail to receive the points necessary or less

points because you did not have any experience on comparable projects.

I would

suggest that the experience of the company employees actually performing the

task should be the key and not the actual company. A new company could start

with employees of a dissolved company. The evaluation criteria is outlined in

the Newfoundland and Labrador regulations. I mean, I think it should be

re-evaluated to determine if changes are necessary.

I just

want to make that point because I believe, as a result of these, government

sometimes and taxpayers sometimes pay more for a project than they necessarily

should. It's not because the people that are bidding on the contract don't have

the experienced employees to do the work, it's just simply because they are a

new company.

If we

want to promote new companies, I think we need to take a look at those

regulations and see what we can do to bring that down.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Any further speakers to the

bill?

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I just

want to speak briefly to this. I do applaud the idea of coming in line with the

rest of the country now on curbing and its plans to help eliminate money

laundering. That's been a serious issue for many. It's not just here, it's a

global issue that we all have to do our small part to fight and to mitigate.

I do

applaud the government on speeding along through that and to make sure that we

do implement those things, but, at the same time, trying to make it's easier for

non-residents here in the province to start small businesses. We see a lot of

entrepreneurial spirit here from people who do immigrate into Newfoundland and

Labrador. I can attest, there are a couple of small businesses that started in

my region by people who moved here from the Philippines. It does help contribute

greatly to the region. I do applaud that we are helping this.

I do

have some questions I'll bring to Committee on this as well, but I do think that

we are going in the right direction with that, but, at the same time, we do have

to make sure that we are not opening ourselves or any doors to anyone who has

nefarious motives in that way. We have to make sure that we have every aspect to

mitigate, monitor and to make sure that we're not putting ourselves or our

residents at harm when it comes to some of these things as well.

We have

some concerns about some companies, especially numbered companies and stuff like

that on some of the things in the past that has happened. We need to make sure

that we don't go down those roads again, but also that we're open and

transparent about how some of these companies operate, who's on their board of

directors and some of the things that go on there. We do need to make sure that

we are aware, an ability to have resources and the proper monitoring to keep an

eye on these kind of things. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands did make

good points there about some of the things we do have to do and we have to be

aware of.

With

that, I do support this. I hope that we see further stuff when it comes to the

Corporations Act to protect ourselves,

protect residents, protect consumers and to make sure that we are going in the

right track to be competitive, but, at the same time, we're not opening any

doors to any other things that would probably bring harm to us.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Any further speakers to the

bill?

Seeing

none, if the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, the

debate will be closed.

The hon.

the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I really

appreciate the feedback and comments from everyone in this House.

I'll

just address the questions now and then we can obviously answer a lot more

questions in Committee.

To the

Member for Ferryland, I just want to make sure I was clear in my opening

remarks. In terms of the beneficial owner provisions, there are six other

provinces and then in terms of the no residency requirements, there are eight

other provinces.

I also

want to clarify that a physical address is still required for all companies to

register a company in Newfoundland and Labrador as per the articles of

incorporation documents. The company does still have to have a registered office

in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess we are talking about the Canadian

immigration status of the directors is the core of what we're getting at with

the proposed changes, Speaker.

In terms

of the protections for privacy that was raised by the Member for Harbour Main:

the information would not be public; it would be collected and used by law

enforcement as they look into different crimes or potential crimes and do those

investigations. They would have information from many sources that would help

them in their investigations. There is no element of – none of this information

would be released to the public.

The

fines are unchanged from the existing

Corporations Act and they range from $500 to $5,000.

The

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raised many good points and I'll address

those now. In terms of disclosing the beneficial owners publicly: there are two

phases to what the federal government has been driving. This is the first phase

in terms of the company creating a register and keeping a register of the

individuals with significant control.

The

second phase, Speaker: the federal government is looking at creating a

pan-Canadian beneficial owner registry. This is something we've seen globally.

In February 2020, the federal government undertook public consultations on doing

exactly that. That is still in progress and that would be a second phase

Canada-wide. It is where other countries are going honestly, Speaker. The UK

have that now. There is a registry publicly available of all of the beneficial

owners of companies. I think that is an excellent point.

This is

the first phase. I can't speak to whether or not phase two will be something

that we'll bring to this House, but the federal government is thinking about

that. I know the federal Finance ministers are talking about that and there is a

What We Heard document on the federal government website about that at the

moment that is called Strengthening Corporate Beneficial Ownership Transparency

in Canada. There was a White Paper done by the federal government as well.

The

Member also talked about the Procurement Act in terms of requirements for

companies bidding on government work. That would not be covered in the

Corporations Act ; that would be in the

Procurement Act, which I believe I'm pretty sure falls in another department.

Then, I guess, we also did consultations with the Privacy Commissioner as well

from a privacy perspective.

In terms

of the residency provisions that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands raised,

I think those are excellent questions. In 2018, there were changes to the

Corporations Act ; that was before my

time. But in that the department was trying to do that same thing. We put in

interim measures, we left the 25 per cent in and essentially we're taking it a

step further because the measures that were taken in 2018 didn't go far enough

in helping these individuals start businesses.

In terms

of are we opening ourselves up. The Member for Harbour Main talked about this.

Directors of companies have limited liability, they're protected by the

corporate veil and there are limited situations whereby they would be liable.

So, like I said, companies still have to have a physical address in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I also

want to clarify, they were talking about Canadian residency, not Newfoundland

and Labrador residency.

Also, in

terms of keeping track of the beneficial owners, as the Member for Mount Pearl

referenced, the CRA also keeps a list of legal owners who own 10 or more of the

shares, so now we're kind of getting at a different angle, the beneficial

owners. I also think it's worth pointing out that sole proprietors do not have

to be a resident in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're kind of following in the

path of other provinces as well with that change.

The

Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, I think, referenced the Procurement Act

as well. My understanding is the Procurement Act does not have points and that

might be a condition of a specific tender or an RFP.

I also

want to thank the Member for Labrador West for his feedback and the Member for

Ferryland. I'm happy to answer any more questions in Committee.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is Bill 24 now be read a second time.

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.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act. (Bill 24)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a second time,

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

24)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that this House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

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

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is the

pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 24,

An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Corporations Act.” (Bill 24)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Chair.

Has the

department consulted with groups such as the St. John's Board of Trade and the

Atlantic Chamber of Commerce on these two changes?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

federal government did extensive consultations on this. We didn't do specific

consultations outside, I guess, speaking with impacted parties. We talked a lot

to Memorial University, for example, about the proposed change to residency. But

primarily, the consultations were done by the federal government. All that is

available on their website.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Has the Association for New

Canadians been consulted on this legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have

not consulted the Association for New Canadians, although we did speak with some

– sorry, there is an organization. Not the Association for New Canadians, but we

did consult with an organization that works with newcomers in Newfoundland and

Labrador about this change.

I also

want to clarify and add we did consult with the CPA and the Law Society, and the

federal government consulted with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about these

changes.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

In addition to this

legislative change, what is government doing to make it easier for immigrants,

newcomers and temporary residents to create businesses in this province?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

I thank the Member for the

question. I would defer to the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and

Skills to talk about what our government is doing to help newcomers.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE:

I feel like I might be like

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands at this point in time, wondering what I

should say next.

Thank

you very much. I would like to say a thank you to the minister for acting on the

direct representation of newcomers to Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the

things that we found in our consultations, in terms of barriers to newcomers to

Newfoundland and Labrador, is that they felt that the incorporation system for

entrepreneurs is not as welcome as it needs to be.

This

will correct – this was a direct measure which was introduced to the government,

to our thought process, by newcomers. With that said, Mr. Chair, it does provide

a more welcoming environment.

Now,

with that said, I'll take that. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE:

The minister points out

something which is very important: What are you doing to help newcomers,

including starting businesses? Well, Mr. Chair, the incorporation process was

daunting for newcomers because, of course, it required a director being a

resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, many newcomers did not have

these associations, these relationships that were forged.

There

was some question as to whether or not there could be questions about money

laundering, questions about the incorporation process, why it would be necessary

for those who would incorporate a business to have a director from the province

outside of the newcomer themselves. Through the jurisdictional scan, what we

found was that other provinces, in consultation with the federal government,

felt no risk to public security or safety, or to law enforcement. The risk was

minimal and, in fact, could be easily controlled and enforced. So when it comes

to helping newcomers, what we have to do is listen to newcomers. When the

Minister of Digital Government and Service NL sat with several newcomers who

were entrepreneurs, this was a very specific piece of advice that they were

giving to us.

addition to that, Mr. Chair, when we look at job matching, we've introduced not

only new portals, new pathways for newcomers, priority skills – for example,

where we are now, including those who are graduates of Memorial University and

the College of the North Atlantic, those who bring advanced skills and

experience to our province, we've opened up new pathways for newcomers – but

we've gone even further. With our job matching, our Priority Skills matching

program, we're also matching not only those who are here with open work permits,

those who graduated from Memorial or graduated from CNA who have open work

permits, but we've asked employers from the province to register under this

pathway so that we can help match them and their businesses, their human

resources efforts, with existing people in our province with skills.

Mr.

Chair, we spend a significant amount of money educating people not only from

Newfoundland and Labrador – we spend $150 million annually on skills training –

but we also spend significant money on educating foreign international students.

It does not seem very practical for us as a province in a demographic challenge

to educate those international students, but then upon graduation for them not

to have a position.

I hope,

Chair, that answers the question that the minister has posed to me.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I note that you stated with respect to some of the concerns I raised

about protection of privacy that it's not public information; therefore, that

seems to address that issue of privacy. But, no, I don't think it does. I think

that we need to know has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the

provision with respect to beneficial ownership, first of all.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL \

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you very much.

The

Privacy Commissioner has been consulted.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you.

With

respect to this, though, this legislation with respect to beneficial ownership

is not – you say it's not public information so it really doesn't have to be

concerned about protection of privacy. But we note that the legislation will be

examining, for example, individuals who are – like I say, the owners or

controllers of the corporation. It's going to be looking at the names found on

official documentation to look at accuracy of the information. It's going to

search through many layers of information to see who the beneficial owners are.

So,

again, what assurances are there that individual's rights with respect to their

information is going to be protected? I mean, what's in place to address that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess

I'll just clarify that the corporations don't have to give us the data. The

corporation just has to keep it themselves. A company would have to keep a list

on hand and, you know, their own information and privacy policies or whatever

would manage that. They have to keep a list of the beneficial owners of that

company so that they can produce it to law enforcement, if and when needed.

So in

terms of, I guess, how law enforcement protects data of the investigations that

they do, that would fall under their normal kind of information management

practices from the RNC and the RCMP.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

So just on that point,

though, with respect to the privacy. You indicated that the Privacy Commissioner

has been consulted. Did the Privacy Commissioner report back or is that in

progress? Is there any direction from the Privacy Commissioner on this

legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

Privacy Commissioner was consulted. That has concluded. My understanding is any

feedback would have already been incorporated and there are no outstanding

concerns.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Also, the issue with respect to fines. Now, you indicated that there are fines

in the range of $500 to $5,000.

Can you

just explain and expand on how that's going to play out, please?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

fines in the bill are $5,000, consistent with existing fines in the act;

503.1(5) does have a fine of up to $200,000. I guess, how that would play out is

if someone commits an offence related to beneficial ownership, they could get a

fine of up to $200,000 or six months in jail, or both.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

So with respect to committing an offence with respect to beneficial ownership,

what exactly do you mean by that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

To me that would say that

they committed an offence against – they did not meet the requirements in the

act for beneficial ownership.

I can

read that

section of the bill, clause 8. It's clause 8, 503.1 “Every director or

officer of a corporation who knowingly authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the

contravention of subsection 45.2(1) or 45.5(2) by that corporation commits an

offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.

(2) Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly records or knowingly

authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the recording of false or misleading

information in the register of the corporation referred to in subsection 45.2(1)

commits an offence.

(3) Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly

provides or knowingly authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the provision to any

person or entity of false or misleading information in relation to the register

of the corporation referred to in subsection 45.2(1) commits an offence.

(4) Every shareholder who knowingly contravenes subsection 45.2(4) commits an

offence.

(5) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (1) to (4)

is liable on

summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.”

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Chair.

Those

were all my questions.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Chair.

I do

appreciate the minister's commentary when she closed debate in second reading

and she talked about the fact that there is a second phase that the federal

government is considering, by the sounds of it, as it relates to publicly

disclosing the names of all beneficial owners. That is great, I'm glad they're

considering it; when I hear someone is considering it, it means it may or may

not happen.

I'm just

wondering, Minister, from the perspective of substantial owners in corporations

here in Newfoundland and Labrador that are benefiting from the public purse,

whether that be grants, loans or other dealings, what is to stop us here in

Newfoundland and Labrador – forget about what the feds are doing on a national

level to disclose everybody because I am not talking about disclosing for every

corporation. I'm only talking about the ones that are benefiting from the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of monetary favour or business

dealings with the province.

What is

to stop us from bringing in or amending this piece of legislation to make it

mandatory that anybody who is involved in that regard, that corporation, a

numbered company or whatever the case might be, that that would be public

information in the name of openness and transparency?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you to the Member for

the question.

The

federal government is consulting on that. There is a document,

What We Heard , in terms of – sorry, I'm just distracted, sorry. To

the Member's question, the US government have gone in this direction, 87 per

cent of companies have to disclose, I guess, information to a central database

that's not publicly available. But in terms of the European Union, as of 2018

there's a European Union directive that all members have to implement a central

registry of beneficial owners.

I guess

in terms of companies that get money from the provincial government, the

Procurement Act would deal with that

in terms of requirements of a company when they get a contract from the

provincial government and the Auditor

General Act that we talked about earlier this week would also be relevant as

we talked about the authorities of the Auditor General as they pursue and – we

gave the Auditor General the power to look at how public money is spent.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Follow the money.

S. STOODLEY:

Follow the money my colleague

says.

That is

something, I guess, in spirit that we are working towards. This is the first

phase, but, obviously, I can't comment on whether or not that will be a

direction but that is certainly the direction of the federal government and

other countries. I have no reason to believe, at this moment, that that will not

be the direction we'll be going in.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

I thank the minister for

that.

Again, I

appreciate what the minister is saying that that's something that the federal

government is looking at and the European Union and so on in terms of a registry

and so on. I also understand the Auditor General, if there was some concern that

money was misspent, so to speak, or not utilized for what it was supposed to be

utilized for, then the AG, under what we passed yesterday, could look into that.

That's all good stuff. I'm not knocking any of that. I think that's a good

thing.

But the

point I'm trying to get at here is that as things stand currently, to the best

of my knowledge at least and maybe I can be corrected, is that you could have

corporation 1234, a numbered company and they could, in theory, get loans,

government loans, non-repayable government loans. They could get grants. They

could be involved in business dealings, as we've seen happen with the Canopy

Growth situation with that numbered company on Plank Road. They may not have

been spending the money wrong. Maybe they applied for it; they may have applied

for the money and met the criteria to get the money. They may be spending the

money the way it was intended, but the bottom line is the public doesn't know

who the individuals are involved in that deal.

So when

it comes to this concept of openness and transparency, when it comes to this

concept of people with connections inside government who are hiding behind a

numbered company and benefiting from their friends, that's the public

perception. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying the public

perception, which is everything, if you want to instill confidence. You could

have friends of government, connections to government, whatever stripe that

government is, who are benefiting from the public purse in dealings with

government, and then those individuals can hide behind a numbered company.

I guess

what I'm saying is regardless of what the federal government is doing and

regardless of what the European Union is doing and so on, I can't see why we

can't address it in our legislation to say that if any corporation is benefiting

from taxpayer funds in Newfoundland and Labrador, they must disclose the names

publicly of those involved. That's my point, Minister.

I'm

wondering is that something that you would be open to looking at bringing

forward. Whether the federal government decides to do a registry or not, whether

the European Union decides to do one or not, is that something you would

entertain in Newfoundland and Labrador in the interest of openness and

transparency with public dollars? That's my question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Chair.

I can't

speak to all the nuances raised by the Member. I mean, what I will say is that

the details for phase two are still in progress. We have to work out who's going

to pay for such a registry. How are the provinces going to contribute to it? Is

it all provinces? Is it mandatory? There are a lot of federal, provincial,

interprovincial discussions that need to happen on a federal public registry.

That depends on the outcome of phase two, the consultation documents, which I

recommend the Member read. It's on the federal government's website. I'll

certainly send to the Member.

In terms

of directors of a corporation, in terms of the

Corporations Act , we do not

differentiate whether a company has a name, rabbit company, or whether it has a

number, the 123 company. In terms of the

Corporations Act there's no difference. The disclosure requirements are

exactly the same.

When

someone registers a company they have to list the directors. Now, with the

beneficial owners' clause that we're proposing, that company also has to keep a

list of the beneficial owners as defined in the proposed legislation for law

enforcement. In terms of a company name versus the number of a company in terms

of the Corporations Act , that has no

relevance.

I thank

you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I can add anything further.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not

going to belabour this, so this will be my last point on it. Again, I'm not

suggesting that Newfoundland and Labrador is going to go ahead of the curb now

and that we're going to create a business registry, at any significant cost or

otherwise, for every corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be

great if it happens. I hope the feds do it, and if they do, I hope we get on

board. That is a good thing.

I'm not

talking about a registry. All I'm simply asking about or suggesting is that if

company 123 applies for a non-repayable government loan or a grant, or they

benefit in some other way through some dealing with the government and the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I, as a citizen, should be able to

– whether there's a website with it all listed, that's one thing. I should be

able to call up some department in government and say, listen, I've just seen

that company 123 just got money from the government. I want to know who is

company 123. I want to know the names of the people involved in this deal, which

didn't happen under the Canopy Growth situation – it didn't happen. CBC had to

investigate and find out that there was some company on Plank Road and nobody

could tell us who the person was.

question and my point is – and if you can clarify it, that'd be great. I really

hope –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Stop talking.

P. LANE:

Who said stop – Chair, I'm

not going to stop talking.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs might think this is a big joke, but I don't. I'm

sure the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador don't either.

Anyway,

my point is that if there's a corporation benefiting, then we should have the

right to know who those individuals are so dots can be connected, if necessary.

It's not about this government; it's about any government. That's all I'm

asking.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and

happy to contribute to the debate.

The

Member asks an important question, which is when it comes to taxpayers' dollars

where is the accountability? So a couple of things I'll just point out here.

Number one – and our department does deal a lot with providing funding through

various means to various enterprises, corporations, companies and entrepreneurs

in our province.

I can

tell you that there is not one dollar that goes out to somebody that is not

publicly known or accounted for, and the Auditor General has the ability to do

so. I would put a challenge out that if anybody can find me a dollar that was

put out to a company, in taxpayers' dollars, where that accountability was not

there, I would be interested in seeing where that was and where it is because I

do not think that is the case.

I can

tell you from having been in this department now since August of 2020,

everything is extremely scrutinized, to the point where in many cases we're

criticized because we don't get it out fast enough because we do the due

diligence behind it. Because nobody wants to see a situation where money is

expended without the ability to know where it went or how it is recovered, but

it is a good point.

The

second part, I will say just for the record, there was never a taxpayer dollar

that went into Canopy. What happened there is there was remittances to the

Newfoundland liquor corporation when it came to taxation. In fact, last year,

when everything went sideways there, I actually tweeted a picture of the

remittance cheque that was sent back from Canopy to the NLC with every dollar.

There was no actual money from our department put into that corporation,

everything there was through a taxation and remittance format. I do think that's

an important distinction that needs to be put out there.

Again,

coming back, it is a good point and, hopefully, I have answered it

satisfactorily.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 10

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 10

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The

Corporations Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

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

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise and report Bill 24.

CHAIR:

The motion is the Committee

rise and report Bill 24.

Is it

the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

The hon.

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

B. WARR:

Speaker, the Committee of the

Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 24 without amendment.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that Committee have considered the matters referred to them

and have reported Bill 24 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

When shall the bill be read a

third time?

S. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that we do

now recess.

SPEAKER:

This House do stand recessed

until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Good

afternoon, everyone.

Joining

us today in the Speaker's gallery, I would like to welcome Toby Obed. Mr. Obed

will be recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon.

Welcome,

Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear

statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Cape St. Francis,

Baie Verte - Green Bay, Placentia West - Bellevue, Torngat Mountains and Harbour

Grace - Port de Grave, with leave.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's my

honour to stand in this House of Assembly today and recognize the volunteer

efforts of the BGC in Norris Arm. The BGC are enormous to youth programs in the

town of Norris Arm.

I had

the honour to join them on many occasions in supporting them with seniors'

activities sponsored by the BGC. During the pandemic they provided meals to

seniors of the community and provided help with seniors' activities.

The BGC

have been a valuable contribution to the youth of the community and to the

province to enhance their skills and productivity.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members in this House of Assembly to join with me in

recognizing the BGC of Norris Arm.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I

recognize Rose Nichols of Pouch Cove. Rose has been a community volunteer for

many years, but it was 11 years ago that she began knitting Hats for Newborns.

Following the birth of her eldest granddaughter, she saw that all newborns were

wearing knitted hats. She thought that the hats were purchased by the hospital,

but a nurse explained to her that volunteers supplied them, and that's all that

Rose needed to hear.

Purchasing the materials that she needed, she began the process of knitting hats

for newborns in her spare time. Over the past 11 years, it's estimated that Rose

has donated over 2,000 baby hats to the Labour and Delivery unit at the Janeway

Children's Health and Rehabilitation Centre. What a fantastic way to volunteer

your time and your talent, all the while supporting those young lives in their

first days. Such a level of volunteerism has to be applauded.

Speaker,

I ask all hon. Members in joining me in thanking Rose Nichols of Pouch Cove for

being a kind-hearted volunteer. We can all learn from her example.

Thank

You.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR:

Speaker, today, I'd like to

highlight an amazing young athlete from my district; an up-and-coming star. At

just 15, Logan Colbourne from Coffee Cove, a community of 13, is minding the net

for the provincial AAA hockey team.

Logan

was a late starter compared to his teammates when he joined the Springdale Minor

Hockey Association in Grade 6 as an atom, on to peewee and now a bantam. Logan

played with the provincial AA hockey team before being chosen for the provincial

AAA team.

Logan's

desire was to be a goalie and seized every opportunity to excel in the net,

including summer hockey camps with Impact Hockey training. Logan Colbourne is

attracting the interest of provincial coaches. This summer his hockey coach

requested him to play with the under 18s.

Logan

tried out for the High Performance Program this year and made second cut for the

HPP NL team. After only four years of playing hockey, Logan is beyond thrilled

with the opportunities he's been given and anticipates another great season.

Logan is very grateful to his family, his coaches and teammates and peers for

their support and encouragement.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in wishing Logan much success as he continues to

pursue his love of hockey.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I sit in

this hon. Chamber today to recognize the Ride for Andrew Smith, which was held

on September 18 in the beautiful town of Arnold's Cove.

This

charitable event was organized by Mr. John Barrett and was in aid of a young

man, Andrew Smith, who was involved in a life-changing car accident that has

left Andrew confined to a wheelchair. The fundraising goal of this event was to

raise enough money to purchase a custom motorized wheelchair for Andrew so he

could travel the community to visit friends and family.

The

event, which had 55 motorcycles, the fire truck from the Arnold's Cove Volunteer

Fire Department and many other vehicles from the community, travelled around

Arnold's Cove and then proceeded to Vernon's Antique Car Museum in Swift

Current. The ride then returned to Arnold's Cove where they had a reception at

the local Lions Club.

The Ride

for Andrew raised a total of $9,280 towards his wheelchair, which is now in the

purchasing stage.

I invite

all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation for the people of the

Arnold's Cove area for coming together and ensuring Andrew got his new

wheelchair.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

In 2007,

Toby Obed began a journey toward healing as lead plaintiff of the residential

class-action lawsuit against the federal government and testifying about trauma

he suffered at a residential school.

Moulded

by loss and trauma, taken from his family at age three, he doesn't remember his

family fighting back; he only remembers their cries when he was taken from his

home. Since then Toby has never had a home.

His

journey was filled with physical, emotional and sexual abuse. He aged out of the

system at 16. Turning to alcohol, in 1993 he passed out in a snowbank. At 50

below, Toby's liver and kidneys were frozen. Waking up from a coma two months

later, he had no feet and no left arm below his elbow. Toby's scars are physical

and emotional.

Moulded

into a strong advocate, he advocates for affordable housing, the ability for

families to heat their homes and feed their children. He challenges all levels

of government.

shares his memories of abuse so no child will ever have to hear their parents

cry as they are removed from their home; so children can have a home, surrounded

by their language, culture and love. All of which was taken from him.

Please

join me in applauding Toby Obed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, with leave.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you to all my colleagues for granting leave.

Speaker,

today, I would like to recognize a very brave little girl from my district,

seven-year-old Olivia Parsons of Shearstown.

Olivia

loves unicorns, school, her friends and her favourite pastime is playing and

spending time with her four sisters. She's full of energy, love and kindness.

But just

before the close of last year's school year last spring, Olivia started to feel

unwell. Following medical appointments and blood work, Olivia was diagnosed with

leukemia.

She was

admitted to the Janeway hospital to begin treatments immediately. Needless to

say, life changed for the entire family. But as challenging as this new journey

has been, her parents, Allan and Jessie, say their seven-year-old daughter

demonstrates outstanding strength and positivity every day.

The

communities of Shearstown - Butlerville and surrounding areas in Conception Bay

North have rallied around Olivia and her family, supporting them with

fundraisers, fire truck parades and a family fun day with a community softball

game and live, local entertainment.

Today, I

ask that all hon. Members here in the House of Assembly join me in commending

Olivia for her courage, strength and determination. Olivia, we are all behind

you, wishing you a full recovery.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I

would like to highlight the 70th anniversary of the Arts and Letters Awards

Program and to remind artists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that this

year's submission deadline is November 19.

As one

of government's flagship and most popular arts programs, the Arts and Letters

Awards were initiated in 1951 when the then-Minister of Education Samuel J.

Hefferton convened a meeting of prominent citizens to explore the possibility of

promoting wider interest in cultural activities. Subsequently, in 1952, this

annual series of arts awards was launched.

Today,

the program continues to stimulate and celebrate creative activity by providing

62 cash awards, adjudication of all submissions by professional artists and the

opportunity for winners to participate in a group exhibition at The Rooms.

The Arts

and Letters Awards Program is open to both emerging and established artists in

junior and senior divisions. Categories include: music, literary, visual art and

multimedia. As well, the program includes the Percy Janes First Novel Award,

which honours the life and work of one of Newfoundland and Labrador's most

distinguished writers by awarding a cash award for an unpublished novel.

Speaker,

I encourage all creative, artistic-minded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

consider making a submission for this program. More information can be found on

the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation's website.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

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

The

Official Opposition supports the Arts and Letters Awards Program and

congratulates the program on its 70th anniversary. The program has been and is

continuing to support artists throughout by awarding of prizes in a variety of

categories.

This

program throughout the years has encouraged and developed our cultural

creativity in the form of books, multimedia and the visual arts. This province's

artists, many from within the District of Bonavista, are well known throughout

the country and the world for their works and it's through programs like this

that has enabled them to continue their passion.

Seventy

years is a long time to all those who had adjudicated during this time and a

huge thank you from all of us in the province.

encourage all artists to participate in this year's competition – and as the

minister stated the November 19 deadline – and to submit your work for

consideration. It may be your stepping stone to future success.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I would

like to encourage any artist listening to make a submission to the Arts and

Letters Awards Program. Reward recognition for your work is not easy to come by

so please don't miss this opportunity.

If we

want our artistic community to continue to flourish, we need to invest more in

accessible spaces for artists and more venues to showcase their work. Like I

mentioned before during the debate on the budget, we need to start looking at a

tax-rebate program for young artists who are also coming up through the system.

encourage government, the private sector and the public to show continued

support for artists in this province, many of whom saw their livelihood affected

by this current pandemic.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

pleased to take this opportunity today in the House to recognize primary,

elementary and secondary teachers in all disciplines who've demonstrated

exceptional innovation in instruction or compassion in teaching.

Last

week, the Premier and I announced the first-ever recipients of the Premier's

Award for Teaching Innovation and the Minister of Education's Award for

Compassion in Teaching.

The

Premier's Award recognizes teachers who have demonstrated innovation in

instruction and who have gone above and beyond to find innovative ways to

deliver the curriculum resulting in greater educational outcomes for students.

The

Premier's Award recipients are: Colin Barry of St. Matthew's school; Matthew

Grant of Holy Trinity High; Stacey Hopkins of Leary's Brook Junior High; Lindsay

Janes of Crescent Collegiate; Celine Monnier of E'cole des Grands Vents; and Sam

Paterson of Brookside Intermediate.

The

Minister of Education's Award for Compassion in Teaching recognizes

inspirational and compassionate teachers who have gone above and beyond to

support the social, emotional and mental health of their students, colleagues or

school community as a whole.

The

Minister of Education's Award recipients are: Pamela Avery of Swift Current

Academy; Kim Bonnell of Eric G. Lambert School; Nathalie Brunette of Macdonald

Drive Junior High; Erin Coates of Mount Pearl Senior High; Dustin Rideout,

ConnectED; Gail Spicer, St. James Regional High; Catherine Tansley, Mount Pearl

Intermediate; and Sara Toope, Beachy Cove Elementary.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of the House to join me in recognizing the recipients and, in

fact, all educators throughout the province for their dedication and

contribution. Like the rest of us, teachers have been impacted considerably by

COVID-19 and I commend them for their adaptability and willingness to put

students first.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker, and I'd

like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Speaker,

my colleagues and I join the minister in congratulating these teachers for

excellence in their profession and for being role models in society. Anything we

can do to celebrate and promote the qualities these teachers exhibit is to be

celebrated. They have shown strong, innovative ideas and compassion in teaching.

Speaker,

the ability to inspire and shape your minds is perhaps one of society's greatest

callings. These winners have demonstrated outstanding commitment to their

classrooms, schools and indeed our community. They have gone above and beyond

and I want to thank each one of these deserving individuals.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I thank the minister and

the Premier, too, for instituting these awards for teachers.

Teachers

in this province go above and beyond every day. During the pandemic, they

stepped up when there didn't seem to be a plan, and even now they continue to do

so, not just as educators but as social workers, mentors to fill the gaps when a

lack of resources might mean a child falls through the cracks.

recognize the many burdens placed on our teachers and we owe these award

recipients and all teachers our sincerest thanks.

Again, I

thank you for instituting these awards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I want

to acknowledge the government's new conference this morning, which offered more

clarity than has been offered prior to today. It may have taken five days and a

dozen questions here in the House but we thank you for listening.

I ask

the minister: Can you give some sort of timeline for when we might return to

normal in our health care system?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

continues to be a difficult time. I want to recognize the work of Mr. Hepditch

and his staff at the Centre for Health Information, as well as all our health

care providers who, once again, have stepped up to deal with yet another totally

unexpected and unprecedented issue.

In terms

of restoration of services, that is a staged process. Mr. Hepditch said it would

take at least several days to begin that process and it has to be done in a

staged fashion to ensure any unknown factors in the machine are dealt with as

and if they arise to prevent any further occurrence.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

We do

acknowledge there are stages that have to happen here, but we want to keep

reiterating that people are in peril here and we need to move as quickly as

possible and all the resources that are necessary need to be put into this.

Speaker,

in this morning's conference the word “rebuild” was used a number of times to

describe some of what is happening to repair the situation.

Does the

minister have any timeline for how long it will take to rebuild the province's

health information system?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

Without

giving away anything that would be unwise to mention, this process has already

begun and is instrumental in being able to move us onto the next steps of

bringing in our most critical systems first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday, the Deputy Premier indicated she does not see the situation at an

emergency, yet the four regional health authorities have activated their

emergency operations centre. A cybersecurity expert based in Fredericton is

publicly declaring this cyberattack the worst in Canadian history.

I ask

the Deputy Premier: Do you believe the situation is an emergency?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

You

know, our hearts are with and our efforts are for the many patients, families

and the health care providers that are caught up in this situation, and has as

been determined this morning it is definitely a cyberattack. This is very

difficult. All of our focus right now is on restoring services and making sure

we get those services up as quickly as possible.

I can

certainly say that for those that are involved in this particular situation, it

is an emergency; it's very difficult for these patients, for these families and

for health care in general. We're going to continue to work as determinedly and

as diligently as we can to restore the service as quickly as possible.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

say that the Official Opposition sees this as an emergency and we need to treat

it as one and address it as one.

Speaker,

we recognize this extraordinary event remains ongoing, we're in the middle of

this event but we have to be ready for the next one.

I ask

the government: Will you commit to a full public review of this incident to

inform increased cybersecurity measures to prevent the next one?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Certainly, Speaker, our

provincial emergency operation centres are up and operational. I think that the

public has been well informed by Eastern Health, by the department as to the

processes that we're undertaking. We're trying to move through this as

expeditiously as possible.

Obviously, as a security matter, we can't go further into disclosing information

or further details, I'll certainly say that. We have committed, in this House,

to do a full debriefing once we understand what has occurred, how it has

occurred and how we're handling it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the Deputy Premier for at least acknowledging that we need to do more to be

prepared for the next one and we will diligently keep continuing to push to make

sure that we're ready for whatever happens in the future.

Today,

Western Health's operations were halted, much like the other regional health

authorities.

I ask

the minister: Was this change made purely out of caution or because Western

Health's system maybe more compromised than initially thought?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

The information I have and

that was provided at the briefing this morning by the VP from NLCHI was that

this was done out of an abundance of caution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

With

chemotherapy appointments in Western now being cancelled until at least the end

of the week there are a lot of people feeling uneasy in our province at one of

the most difficult moments of their lives.

I ask

the minister: What extra measures are being put in place now to ensure cancer

care can hit the ground running once this attack is over?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

There

are two centres in Western Health that are still able to provide service and

those services continue uninterrupted. I have spoken with Mr. Diamond, Eastern

Health runs the provincial cancer care program, each appointment that has been

deferred or moved is examined by the appropriate medical oncologist, the

clinician in charge each day to see what priority and how long these people

could or should wait before bringing them back in.

It is

not safe, currently, to offer services in certain areas because of uncertainties

around the infrastructure piece. As soon as those are remedied and our critical

systems are back online that will make life a lot easier for everybody; they

have my sympathies and support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

They

have our sympathies, but we want to echo – and I've echoed this to the Premier –

they have our support. If there are extra resources or anything that needs to be

done, we are here on this side of the House to support the government in moving

that forward and providing those services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, the CEO of Eastern

Health today referred to those who have travelled long distances, particularly

from Labrador, only to have their appointments cancelled.

I ask

the minister: Will you show leadership by fully covering the extra costs

incurred by these people through your Medical Transportation Assistance Program?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

Certainly, we welcome the offer of assistance from the Members opposite – very

much appreciate it.

As far

as those individuals who have travelled long distances are concerned for

investigations and procedures that they weren't able to avail of, we will not

count this against their liabilities under the MTAP program; it is a

reimbursement program. Obviously, the income support clients are fully

reimbursed anyway.

Anybody

who feels that they have some special circumstances we need to be aware of, they

can bring those to our attention and they will be viewed sympathetically.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I would

think in this situation they are all unique and all should be covered 100 per

cent, based on the principle here that they were not at fault. This

unfortunately happened outsi