PDF Version

March

1, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 61

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 5, Bill 68, and I further move that the said

bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It

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

leave to introduce Bill 68, and that the said bill shall 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.

MR. SPEAKER: All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act No. 5, carried. (Bill 68)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act No. 5. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 68 has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second

time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would call Order 3, third reading of Bill 67.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 67, An

Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that the said bill

be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 67 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.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would call Order 4, second reading of Bill 66.

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS. C. BENNETT:

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, it's the early hour of the morning; I'm going to grab my

notes here. I'm going to borrow the Minister of Justice's book. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that

Bill 66,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 3, be now read the

second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that Bill 66 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration

Act No. 3. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an honour to stand in the House on this early Wednesday morning, for what

is the first debate in the House on a morning session under this government.

It's exciting to be participating in the new Standing Orders for the House, in

particular those that recognize

the importance of the travel that many of my colleagues have to make and

also the family commitments that many of us also have in this House. So it's a

pleasure, and I want to congratulate the Members of the House that worked on the

new Orders and say it's exciting to be the first one to speak this morning.

Mr.

Speaker, Bill 66, which is

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act No.

3, is a result of work that our government is doing on the area of our

commitment on multi-year grant funding. As I said earlier, I'm very pleased to

stand in the House today to discuss the amendments regarding pre-commitments of

these multi-year grant funding that we want to put in place for community-based

organizations.

Mr.

Speaker, providing a commitment of multi-year funding to community groups is a

commitment of The Way Forward and as a

means to provide better services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who

rely on community organizations for further enhanced support.

I'm

pleased to stand here today to begin that process of fulfilling the commitment

that we made as part of our election platform and also the work that we've done

in the last year to begin the process of implementing a multi-year grant funding

program.

Mr.

Speaker, the pre-commitment of multi-year grant funding for those organizations

will allow for greater certainty in financial planning for those organizations,

and it will provide both the organization and the provincial government the

opportunity to do more long-term planning when it comes to those financial

commitments.

Pre-commitment, though, while not a specifically defined term in the

legislation, is the ability to enter into an agreement to obtain goods or

services in a current year for delivery and payment in subsequent fiscal years.

And currently, as Members of this House would certainly be aware of, under the

Financial Administration Act the

ability to pre-commit funds is restricted to agreements that are exchange in

nature, agreements that involve the purchase of goods and the purchase of

services. For example, government departments require a pre-commitment of funds

for leasing space when the lease duration expands multiple fiscal years.

Members of this House would have seen yesterday, I tabled some documents that

were commitments around multi-year funding arrangements related to the purchase

of services and goods such as leases and, as is required, we table those

documents in the House.

Grant

funding, specifically though, is considered a non-exchange transaction, as there

isn't really a direct return of a good or a service. Therefore, under the

current legislation, the ability for the province to commit to grant funding

beyond the current fiscal year is actually prohibited.

So the

inability to commit to grant funding for subsequent fiscal years has been

identified as an obstacle to financial planning for community organizations that

rely heavily on provincial government funding for their ongoing operations.

And let

me say right now, Mr. Speaker, we're going to change that. The government is

listening to the concerns of community-based organizations and to this effect we

are amending the Financial Administration

Act to allow for multi-year grant funding agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. C. BENNETT:

Everybody is really

enthusiastic this morning, I can see.

This

will allow for community-based organizations to receive enhanced financial

stability leading to greater consistency in staffing and staff recruitment, and

help in long-term planning to allow for a focus on service delivery.

Community-based organizations are defined as organizations that are

representative of a community or a significant segment of a community and are

engaged in meeting the social, wellness, educational, cultural, environmental,

economic and community development or public safety needs of a community.

The lack

of multi-year funding commitment to these organizations jeopardizes staff

stability, staff recruitment, long-term planning and ultimately the community as

a whole. And community-based organizations are often relied upon to deliver

important services to the communities and individuals they serve. Providing this

degree of stability through the multi-year contracts will allow these

organizations to better focus their efforts on delivery of these services.

Mr.

Speaker, organizations applying for the multi-year community grant program must

be community-based, and funding is for a maximum of three years with the ability

for groups to reapply. Eligibility criteria for the multi-year community grant

program will also require groups to have been in operation for a minimum of

three years and remain in good standing with the provincial government from a

financial and performance perspective, as well as maintain an active presence in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to take the opportunity now to speak in a little bit more

detail about the specifics of the amendments that we're making today we're

asking the House to approve today, I should say and provide a little bit more

technical detail as to the reasons that the

Financial Administration Act needs to

be amended.

As I

have said earlier, pre-commitment, while not specifically termed in legislation,

is an operational term used to denote the ability to enter into an agreement to

obtain goods and services for delivery and payment in a subsequent fiscal year.

The ability to authorize such pre-commitments stems from

section 26.4 of the FAA

the Financial Administration Act

which provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on a written recommendation

of Treasury Board, to authorize government departments to enter into such

contractual arrangements.

Subsection 26.4(

a) and (

b) further note that this authorization is contingent

upon the payment resulting from the agreement coming due to a subsequent fiscal

year and that the minister, deputy minister, or other officer charged with the

administration of the relevant head of expenditure or subhead of expenditure

reports that are referenced in the Estimates books, that in their opinion it is

necessary to make the arrangement at that time.

Based on

the current wording in the Financial

Administration Act , this ability to pre-commit funding for subsequent fiscal

years is restricted, as I said earlier, to agreements that are exchange in

nature, in that they involve the purchase of a good or a purchase of a service.

Grant

funding is considered a non-exchange transaction, as there is no direct return

of a good or service to government as a result of providing the grand funding.

Therefore, the ability of government to commit to providing grant funding to an

organization, as I said earlier, beyond the current fiscal year is currently

prohibited under the Financial

Administration Act . And what we're doing today is making the amendment in

that act to allow for multi-year grant funding to be accepted as part of the

regulations under multi-year commitments under the FAA.

simplify administrative processes, departments will be encouraged to submit a

list of applicants requesting approval for multi-year funding within a year, and

we will be making those decisions between over the next year on the process.

But government's current inability to commit to multi-year funding because of

the FAA is an impediment to the process of multi-year funding, an impediment

that we intend, as I said earlier, to correct as part of this debate.

As I

said earlier, a community-based organization is defined as an organization that

is representative of the community or a significant segment of the community.

And a number of these organizations have indicated over the years that

multi-year funding provides them with an opportunity to do better planning,

better staff recruitment. It also allows them to work on multi-year strategic

plans with a certainty around their funding.

Mr.

Speaker, earlier this year we announced to the community sector a commitment for

core funding again for this year. Given the significant financial circumstances

that we find ourselves in in the provincial Treasury, we were very pleased to do

that early this year to provide stability to those community organizations who

would be worrying and wondering if their organization would be impacted as a

result of budget decisions. We felt it was important to take that concern away

and let those great organizations continue to do the good work that they do.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be fair for me to say as a Member of this House, and

on behalf of the Members in this House, that I think we all recognize the

significant contribution community organizations make to our community. Their

ability to be innovative, their ability to be able to create partnerships with

community organizations, to share infrastructure, to share resources, to be

creative in how to provide the services they need to provide and that they want

to provide by choice and by mandate is something I think that is a testament to

the innovation of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who really are able to

think about and implement ideas that result in incredible efforts being put

forward by these community organizations.

I think

everybody in this House would recognize the incredible work that the volunteers,

that the boards of directors, that the staff and the many stakeholders that

support our community organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador do. I

think it's a critical component of not only our social and educational fabric in

our community but more importantly, what we're known for as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

The good

work that these community organizations do I think is something that makes every

single one of us as MHAs, particularly in those situations where we work closely

with community organizations in our own districts, makes us extremely proud of

the work they do. I think everybody in this House would also agree that funding

for these organizations, having stability and having a clear idea of what the

core funding requirements would be over a three-year period would be something

that would be very beneficial to those organizations.

Mr.

Speaker, just to continue; as I said earlier, we currently do not have the

ability to implement multi-year funding, primarily because of the legislation

that's reflected here today, the issue with the

Financial Administration Act. At the same time, we are working

diligently to create a portal for community organizations to provide information

to streamline the application process for them, to take the time and

administrative burden away from the process for multi-year funding so that they

can focus on the needs of the community and the clients that they serve versus

the needs and wishes of an administrative bureaucracy that may be not the best

use of their resources. Certainly, we will continue to work on that over the

next year and look forward to working in partnership with community-based

organizations to identify and roll out our multi-year funding program as we've

committed.

Various

community organizations have provided feedback to government over the last

number of years and, through various consultations, these organizations have

communicated their desire to obtain multi-year funding arrangements with

government to allow the organizations to plan for the long term. In recent

years, some departments issuing grants to these organizations have issued

letters in advance of the budgetary process advising whether the grant funding

will be continued for the following fiscal year.

Mr.

Speaker, as you would, I'm sure with your long history and experience in

government, you'd certainly be aware that many departments in government provide

funding to community organizations and not only government departments directly,

but we also have agencies, boards and commissions that provide funding to

community organizations such as the regional health authorities.

This

lack of true multi-year funding commitment jeopardizes, as I said earlier, the

staff stability, staff recruitment, long-term planning for these organizations,

and these organizations are often relied upon to deliver critical services to

the communities and the individuals that they support.

Mr.

Speaker, the amendments that we're talking about today for the

Financial Administration Act , we're

also providing for administrative efficiencies, as I've said, for both the

organizations applying for multi-year grant and to the provincial government.

That will be the next phase of the multi-year grant program. Once we have the

FAA legislation adjusted to be able to allow us to provide multi-year funding,

we will begin the process of streamlining the administrative process for those

organizations that are applying for and have been receiving core funding from

government.

Ensuing

that the provincial government is running in the most efficient way possible

will ultimately also help us address the difficult financial situation that we

are facing. Mr. Speaker, as I've said, community-based organizations provide a

very important service to the people that they serve and to the province as a

whole, and the multi-year funding commitment of government is a

cross-departmental project that multiple departments are working on. And I'm

happy to be one of the ministers that's able to stand and speak to this

particular piece of legislation and also provide a little bit of visibility into

the view on multi-year funding and what's going to happen over the next 12 to 18

months as we begin the real important work of providing the administrative

infrastructure for organizations to apply, and also the certainty around the

three-year funding as we move into next year's budget.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been a pleasure to work with multiple ministers on this particular

project; it's still a very active project inside multiple departments and this

step today on the Financial Administration

Act provides us the opportunity to make a very substantial, albeit

administrative, but important adjustment to the

Financial Administration Act that will allow us to implement the

plans we have for multi-year funding over the next number of months and into

next year.

So I

look forward to hearing Members from both sides of the House today speak to this

particular piece of legislation and the amendment that we want to make, and I

look forward to answering any questions that the Members of the House have as we

work through this today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to Bill 66. As the minister

has outlined in regard to the intent of the amendment, or to the bill, it speaks

to

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act and it talks about the

pre-commitments to community-based organizations.

I guess

all of us here understand and recognize the role that many of the

community-based organizations play in the communities throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador, and the significant work they do. All governments, current and in

the past, have worked extensively with community-based groups in terms of the

work they do, and providing assistance through the Public Treasury to assist

them in the work they do, and they do great work oftentimes well all times,

certainly, relating to public policy of an administration and what that is as

they're implementing it.

The work

they do certainly complements the work that's done by others in particular

areas, whether that's with various advocacy groups, whether it's with seniors,

youth groups it's just a vast and a large array of groups that do that and do

great work.

So what

we're talking about here today is an amendment to the

Financial Administration Act to look at a process over a multi-year

period to grant funds, and that would be in advance of an upcoming fiscal year.

While, in general, we certainly support the concept, we do have some questions

and we'll go through, I guess, today in regard to what those would be and

getting some answers to some of those questions. We look at sections 9 and 26

and that would allow the granting of funds; an amendment to the act would allow

that to occur for multiple years.

As the

minister has indicated, for some of these groups that operate, when they look in

terms of administration or operations, what they need in terms of future years

in terms of their ability to operate and what that is, is certainly very

important to them. A lot of them could complement other funding that's coming

from the private sector, could come from other agencies and groups or could come

from fundraising. So it's good for them to be able to project over a period of

time what the requirements are for operation and having access to multi-year

funding, in some respects, could certainly assist that.

Section

9 allows the regulations to be prescribed by Cabinet. My understanding is that

we don't have or haven't seen the regulations in regard to what would follow

this and what the details would be. Again, I think we'll talk further in regard

to the definition of community groups or community organizations and what that

means and what's the ability to expand that if government, through Cabinet, has

the ability to do that. So that's certainly an issue that we want to discuss

further.

Section

26 allows Cabinet, upon the recommendation of Treasury Board, to pre-commit

grants in advance of the fiscal year. The other question is in that year that

the decision is made in regard to the amount of money that's being allocated for

multi-year funding, is it paid out in that fiscal year; is it paid out in

multiple years? If there's an estimates and budget process that goes on here in

the House and there's a figure that's identified for actual community groups,

which you don't know what that definition is yet, what is that amount and when

is it paid out?

Is there

an opportunity in a future year for a new group to come forward and to apply and

look for funding? But if it's already allocated over a three-year period, what's

the process for that group to possibly access funds to do the kind of things

they need to do? Because, in many cases, there could be new groups that are

developed that are identified. If they come forward in the second or third year,

is there opportunity for them to advance or to access funding? Or because the

three- year funding has been allocated, the multi-year, would they be unable to

do so? We need some information in regard to how that would work as well.

Currently, Cabinet can pre-commit spending related to goods and services. It

could be to infrastructure, those types of things that we'd done over multiple

years, but certainly cannot pre-commit outside of that. Obviously, what this is

looking at is expanding government's Cabinet, Treasury Board's ability to make

the pre-commitment to these grants over a period of time.

As well,

across government now the word grant is used. Grant is used in areas like this

in terms of community groups. There are also grants in regard to, or can be, on

the economic development, on the business side of things. Certainly, with the

health authorities there are term grants. We need some clarification in regard

to what that means. That reverts to the definition of community groups and how

that's actually defined.

I spoke

of the regulations that we haven't seen yet. I don't think I just want to

thank the staff who gave the briefing to the Opposition staff in regard to this,

but at that time there was no indication of what would be contained in the

regulations or a copy of those or anything of that nature.

I think

it was referenced that the organizations for multi-year funding must be

community based and funding would be for a maximum of three years, and I guess

groups can reapply. So as you get to your second or third year or some period, I

guess you'd reapply to look to be extended again for an additional three years

or three years or less. I guess we'll need details on how all that would work.

organization must have been in operation for three years, in good standing

financially and performance-wise, and maintain an active presence in the

province. That gets the whole issue of community groups, what they do, how they

interact with various government policies and provide a service to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, there's an accountability factor to it in

terms of what they do and must meet the needs in the province related to various

activities. That's certainly understandable.

understand, too, from the information we got there were some jurisdictional

scans done in other provinces and what they do in regard to this type of

funding, this type of pre-commitment. Some have pre-commitment of grants in

legislation and some don't. So there are some references to specific grants in

particular legislation and others do not.

So, as I

said before, there are various departments, various grant mechanisms within

various departments and I guess through this process we'll have to identify, or

we'll hear from the minister in regard to: Is there going to be an integration

of all those grants from various departments? Is this now going to fall under

one entity? How would these flow? Certainly, we're looking forward to seeing an

explanation on that.

As we go

forward, we'll have some questions in regard to, as I said before, the

definition of grants and what community group actually means under this

amendment. But as I said before, the regulations we haven't seen. So we'd

certainly like to see those and see what the content of them would be because

you're investing greater authority in the Treasury Board and in the Cabinet to

make these decisions. But not knowing these

definitions, not knowing the

parameters, how do they get amended? Can they get amended in regulation? If they

can get amended in regulation that means they never come back to this House.

So we

don't know. You want to be open and transparent in regard to that. It's good to

know in the regulation exactly what it says, what the

definitions are, what the

parameters are. And if changes are to be made to it, once we vote on the

amendments of the legislation, how does that come about and what's the authority

of Cabinet to make changes in the regulations.

As I

said, organizations apply for multi-year funding and then can reapply. The

concept, as I said, in terms of what we're talking about, seems to be

acknowledged. It seems to be certainly, we have heard, and I know my time in

dealing with community groups in terms of stability, budgeting and those types

of things, the concept, yes, I think would be helpful from discussions I've had

and most of us here know that in terms of dealing with various groups.

The

regulations, as I said, I've not seen them yet. Government is asking the House

to give Cabinet the go ahead, I guess, to make these regulations. We haven't

seen any evidence of them; what may be contained in them. As I said, the Finance

Minister later in debate maybe can give us some idea of what would be in the

draft regulations. Let us see the draft regulations before they're finalized,

and that would give some broader understanding in terms of what the details of

this would be as we move forward in multiple years and give us an idea of what

that would be.

As well,

in the briefing I understand there was talk in regard to pre-commitment funds to

what has been called community organizations. But the words community

organization does not appear in the legislation. It would only appear in the

regulations. Again, we're getting to the point of the definition of what that

would be across multiple departments; how it would be amended to who would

have the authority to amend it and those types of items.

As we go

through that, we'll certainly be looking for some detail and some feedback on

that. Does it apply to sports organizations, youth organizations, health and

wellness grants? All of those we're quite familiar with, but which programs and

where are they that we're talking about. Is there a specific list that will be

available? Will there be an appendix or in the regulations, is that the item

where you list out what is eligible and what is not? Or is there a whole ability

for new applicants to come forward, to bring forward and be asked to be

considered for their grants?

When you

look at that in terms of we approve legislation here today or the amendments

sorry, the amendment to the act. What's the protocol for changing the

regulations, including if we were to expand this into business grants, tourism

grants? I mentioned before grants to health authorities, because these are not

stated or defined in the legislation. We would certainly like to see some

information on that, and see what the potential criteria is and how that would

unfold in multiple years, and as we go forward to talk about giving out the

funding in multiple years.

When we

come here, and as mentioned before, come in here to discuss a budget and what

has been allocated in a particular department or across government in regard to

community grants, and there are various grants throughout various divisions of

government. Will these be integrated? What will be the status of those?

Again,

as I mentioned earlier, if we approve through Estimates here, it's voted on here

in the House and there's a certain sum that's agreed to, to distribute to

various groups, once that's done over a three-year period, I think it's very

important to have an understanding of what any new groups to come forward, any

groups that through challenges they may experience need additional funding,

what's the method for them to do that? And are they allowed to do that with the

description here?

Unfortunately, we don't have the regulations. We don't have the details, so we

really don't know how and if that would work. I'm sure it's something that many

community groups would want to know. They will want to have an understanding of

those that exist today or those advocacy groups or others that would come up in

the future and know how that would flow.

So I

recognize the minister for bringing this forward. I think in concept there are

certainly elements of this that would be very helpful to the community-based

organizations. I think there's a lot of detail here that's missing when we look

at the regulations and how this would flow over a number of years, but maybe

through the debate today and getting into committee we can get those answers and

proceed then to see how this would flow over the next number of years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure for me to rise this morning on our first Wednesday morning session of

the House of Assembly. I think it's a great idea, and I commend all those who

have put this system forward.

Yesterday, we debated Bill 65 and, today, we're debating Bill 66, which are the

first two bills of the opening of this session of the House.

As you

know, last fall we introduced several pieces of legislation that were very

valuable, and I'm happy to see that we're continuing that trend, because I think

the bill we introduced yesterday, of course, was a very valuable bill for

transparency and accountability. And the one we're introducing now, one we're

debating now, Bill 66, which is the bill which would amend the

Financial Administration Act to allow

the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the written recommendation of the Treasury

Board to authorize an agreement to be entered into for funds to be granted in a

subsequent fiscal year where certain requirements prescribed in the regulations

are satisfied, is equally as important, And certainly, I would venture to say,

for many of those volunteer organizations, those community-based organizations

who provide such valuable work, it's a dream come true for them.

I will

talk about a couple of organizations in my district a little later, but I go

back to last year in January, I think it was it was early in our mandate,

anyway when the Minister of Finance came to Labrador West with me and we sat

down with many of the community organizations like the Labrador West Status of

Women, Hope Haven and a few more. Their concern at the time, of course, given

the fiscal condition of the province that we found ourselves in, funding was a

major concern for them, and the fact that, of course, the fear of losing

funding.

But the

minister at the time was very adamant that community-based organizations would

continue to be funded. And to go this one, take this one step further, I think

is yeoman's service to those organizations because the concern that they had at

the time was that they spent, rather than not to take away the service they

provide to the community. But they spent a lot of their time a lot of their

time wondering where the next year's funding was coming from. And they spent a

lot of time in administrative duties trying to secure that funding.

What we

see here today, to be able to commit to a three-year funding agreement with

those organizations, puts a lot of those fears to rest, gives them more time to

do the service that they so well do in the communities, and to provide the

service to the residents. I think it's a great thing we're doing here today.

So, as

the minister has stated, currently under the

Financial Administration Act , the

ability to pre-commit funds is restricted to agreements that involve the

purchase of goods or services, and the ability to commit grant funding for

subsequent fiscal years has been identified as an obstacle to financial planning

for community organizations that rely on funding for their ongoing operations.

And

that's the message that we got loud and clear. The minister and I, and many

more, of course, that have talked to these organizations, that's the message

that we've been getting for years, is that they spend so much of their time

trying to secure funding that sometimes they lose sight of what their real

mandate is.

This

amendment to the Financial Administration

Act will allow community-based organizations to receive enhance financial

stability, leading to greater consistency and long-term planning, and allow for

more focus on service delivery, which is basically what I've just referred to.

allows them to provide the service and again, I go back to the Labrador West

Status of Women, the valuable service that they provide to the community; Hope

Haven, which is a crisis shelter and provides such great service, an important

service to women in our community. Now they'll have secure funding that they can

rely on for three years rather than going mouth to mouth one year to the next,

and spending their time on that, they can now concentrate on the service that

they provide.

And, of

course, with every organization and with every funding agreement, there should

come some accountability. I strongly believe that any organization, whether it's

the Status of Women or any other organization, they're prepared to accept some

accountability and responsibility for funding, if they know that the funding is

secured and the funding is long term.

Organizations applying for multi-year grant funding must be community-based and

funding is for a maximum of three years, with the ability for groups to reapply.

So three years is normal when you look any multi-year funding agreement and

the one that I'm most familiar with is the one in municipalities, the Municipal

Capital Works multi-year funding agreement, three years. Three years is a

standard length of time and I think it's quite adequate, actually.

So the

main eligibility criteria for multi-year grant funding will require groups to

have been in operation for a minimum of three years. So the groups are well

established. They've created a base for themselves. They've created a home for

themselves. They've created a mandate for themselves and they created a service

for themselves that the community really appreciates.

They

need to remain in good standing with the provincial government from a financial

and performance perspective. I don't think that's a lot to ask for. If a group

is receiving funding from any government organization or from government itself,

they have to be prepared to be accountable for that funding. They have to be

able to report on the activities. And I'm confident that they are quite prepared

to do that. If they can get a three-year funding agreement with government

whereby they have stability, they have predictability, they're prepared to do

their part and be accountable for the funds that they receive.

course, they have to maintain an active presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, that's pretty natural. I am sure the department has put a lot of time

into this, and I know going back to when the minister visited Labrador West

back in early 2016, we knew then, or I knew then certainly that that's where she

was thinking that's what we needed to do based on the information that she had

gotten from the groups that were there, that they needed that stability and that

predictability and commitment to long-term funding.

I know

the department put some time into this and some work, research seven

jurisdictions, actually. Seven jurisdictions across this country, seven

territories, provinces, provide in legislation the ability to enter into

multi-year contracts. So it's nothing new, it's something that I think that

maybe we should have done a long time ago, but it's a service and a commitment I

think that will be well received within the volunteer community and within the

service organizations.

The

remaining jurisdictions do not have specific reference in legislation on the

ability or inability to enter into multi-year agreements. At least now we've

become number eight, and I think that's great for us to be doing that. Now, one

of the questions I asked in the briefing was: Well, what about new organizations

coming in, new organizations that may form or establish themselves in

communities? Because one of the regulations, one of the criteria in this, for

multi-year funding, is that it would have to be in operation for three years.

But

we're not forgetting about the many new organizations that may want to form,

because they can still apply for funding. They won't get the multi-year until

they've been three years in operation, but they're certainly available and

eligible to access funding for start-up and to get established. So we're not

ignoring any new organizations, what we're doing is that we're establishing a

foundation and a solid footing for the organizations that we have in this

province.

As I

said earlier, two of the organizations that I'd like to reference that would be

recipients of this multi-year funding and, certainly, have mentioned to me

several times, and they were quite adamant when the minister visited last year,

that this was the way to go. I would consider them two very, very there are

more, but I would just reference two in my district. That would be the Labrador

West Status of Women and Hope Haven, which are two very, very valuable and

active organizations in the Labrador West region.

The

Labrador West Status of Women was formed actually was incorporated in 1977. If

I got my math right, I think that's 40 years ago. So they've been around for a

while and when I think about the Labrador West Status of Women and it was

formed in 1977, by the way, in response to the 1967 Royal Commission on the

Status of Women in Canada. The second reason why it was formed was because of

the local hiring practices at the local mining companies.

remember that quite well because I was an employee of IOC at the time. It was a

time when women were getting into non-traditional occupations and IOC were just

hiring them one here, one there, but as you know today, a good percentage, a

very high percentage of the workforce at IOC, for example, are female. So they

have done their work. They have served their purpose to the community.

When I

think of the Labrador West Status of Women, of course, I can't help but think of

one very close friend of mine and a very active person in the community and

that's Noreen Careen who ran this organization. She was the executive director

of this organization for many years. She's stepped back now in the last year or

so because of health issues, but she's still an active member of the community.

When I

think back at all the work that she has done and all the work that this

organization has done for the community of Labrador West, it's just unbelievable

that they were able to exist since 1977, going from year to year, not knowing

whether they were going to have funding for the following year or not.

When you

think about it in your own organizations, that's not a very comfortable way to

operate, but now at least with this and I'm sure that Noreen is jumping up and

down today. I don't know if she's watching us, but she will know very soon, I'm

sure, that to hear this today is music to her ears. I'm sure there are many

other people in Labrador West I'm not just singling out Noreen because there

are a lot of other people in Labrador West that provide service like this and

serve on the boards with her. But when you think about it, it's a dream come

true for these also, these groups, yes, she may be the executive director but

the majority of people who keep these organizations going are volunteers.

There's a volunteer board of directors. You have your volunteers who go out and

deal with people, deal with their issues and, of course, provide great service.

The

other one that I will refer to and mention is Hope Haven. Hope Haven was formed,

I guess, in the early 2000s. Actually it was formed and it was built when I was

the mayor of the Town of Labrador City, and I remember advocating to government

and to other organizations to get this particular service organization up and

running. What it is, it's an organization that provides confidential, safe

emergency shelter to women, with and without children, who are experiencing

violence and abuse. The premise or the property that's built there is a building

that was erected in the early 2000s.

remember going through all the hoops and the issues of getting the permitting

and whatnot and certainly dealing with the residents in the area who were

concerned that they were having this type of shelter in their neighbourhood. But

I tell you today if we went in there today and tried to do anything to remove

that shelter, there would be quite an uproar because it has provided a very,

very valuable service to the women and children of Labrador West.

Again,

it is a unit that has capacity to accommodate nine residents for a six-week

period while they're going through these troubling times, provide a 24-hour

service, a crisis line and they have staff for 24 hours a day. We met with these

people back in January and, again, the same issue came up, that they spend a lot

of their time, a lot of their time and they're very busy people. As you know,

with this type of service, it's a very busy operation to run. But they spent a

lot of their time trying to secure funding for the following year, and one of

the issues that were brought up was that we need to know. We need to know if

we're going to have funding next year or the year after or the year after that.

I think

what we've done here today with this bill and I certainly congratulate the

minister. I know how passionate she was in those meetings, and I'm sure she has

her own organizations in her district that she deals with and everybody, every

MHA in this House has an organization in their district that would benefit from

multi-year funding like this and have organizations that provide such valuable

service.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I guess what I'd like to say and conclude is that yesterday we had a

great bill with our transparency and accountability with Bill 65, today we're

debating a bill that I'm sure the Opposition have no problem with, and I look

forward to their comments as well.

It's a

bill that really sets those organizations onto solid footing. It provides them

stability, allows them to provide the service that they've been established to

provide, and allows them to focus on their core mandate, which is to provide the

service, whatever organization it is. It allows them to concentrate, to be able

to provide their core mandate, rather than going from day to day wondering if

they're going to have money in the bank to provide the funds for either

services, either goods or payroll.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I congratulate the minister, thank the department for the work

they have done on this, and I think we're off to a good start in this session

with the two bills that we've debated, certainly the first two, 65 and 66, and I

look forward to many more debates on many more good bills. I think this one

today is a very valuable one and one that it will be well received within the

volunteer community of our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to stand in this House on our first Wednesday morning in the

new set-up here to debate legislation, and particularly to speak to Bill 66.

This, logistically, and from a principle point of view is a piece of legislation

that I can support. And I see the merits and I see the value of it.

It's

pleasing to know that the opposition have listened to the outcry from the

changes from last year's budget around the definition or core funding and

multi-year funding and the benefits of that. But I think we all agree,

organizations, particularly the not-for-profit sector, needs stability. They

need to be able to have an ability to plan around staffing, around programs,

around developing partnerships.

And as

my colleague for Ferryland has outlined, logistically, this makes all the sense

in the world. We just need to have a little bit more detail of how this works,

because we all want this to work properly. There's no doubt the government are

planning to make this a piece of legislation that would be beneficial. We, as

the Opposition, want to ensure that the groups that could benefit from this

indeed get that opportunity to do it.

All the

logistical information needs to be clear so there's no confusion like we had

last year at budget time about what's project funding and what's core funding.

These organizations do too much, are too valued, and are too necessary for the

people in this province not to have a clear understanding of where they sit and

be able to plan for the future.

As my

colleague for Labrador West outlined, these organizations need that support, and

we all need to be able to support that endeavour. So there's no doubt, we on

this side, or particularly the Official Opposition, will be supporting the

concept.

I know

the minister has been fairly forthright in asking us to outline any concerns we

have, and no doubt we will do that, just some clarification here around what

defines community group. I know there are some

definitions there around the

multi-year funding. Are there abilities there for increases as things change

dramatically, the process for analyzing exactly the return? Because these

organizations still have to be accountable. There has to be a process here where

these organizations are accountable for the money they're getting.

We're

first entrusting that their history and their proven record dictates that they

fit the criteria for multi-year funding, which I'm convinced 99.9 per cent of

them do and will in the future. But in those rare cases where there may be an

organization that goes astray from their mandate or doesn't fulfil what it was

set up to do, what are the safeguards here to ensure that that money then could

be better used somewhere else if that organization isn't fulfilling its need?

Or, how do we help that organization get back on track?

What

impact does it have on the staff of that department? Is there less staff needed?

Is there more staff needed? Can the additional time that those staff have be put

into supporting these organizations in a non-financial way but in a supportive

manner? So there's a bit of clarification here that we'll ask some questions in

Committee no doubt, and no doubt the minister and her staff have gone through

that.

I do

thank the minister and her staff for the briefing they gave our officials. It

was in-depth around the principle of what wants to happen and the discussions.

And no doubt, we'll get a little bit deeper into some of the detail and the

importance of it.

As we do

know, this is not new. It may be new from a legislative point of view, and maybe

even from a legal operations point of view, but multi-year funding has been

happening for a number of years with a number of organizations. It may just not

have been channelled through the proper process here. And I'm glad the minister

is bringing it in here because once the proper process is in place, then

everybody knows where they stand. Each department will know where their

allocations will have to go. They'll know where their future allocations will be

prioritized, and it gives the private sector because there are private sector

groups out there.

If you

look at the monies that are generated by the organizations that we fund outside

of the confines of direct government agencies and corporations, the third party

partnerships that they themselves enter into with the private sector and the

community sector, is multi-million dollar investments there. Having that sector

know that the organizations they are going to partner with have some guaranteed

longevity, for at least a three-year period, is a rare, positive thing.

One of

the challenges I faced as a civil servant a number of years ago, and one of my

direct responsibilities was particularly with a number of organizations in the

not-for-profit sector, was around sustainability. One it was around project

sustainability or program sustainability to be able to get a program that you

had just initiated and piloted for a year and then to be able to take it to

where you're going to get your maximum benefits for the people of this province,

but not being able to secure the funding was a challenge there. Fortunate

enough, as I mentioned earlier, core funding and multi-year funding in principle

existed because most departments would commit to it once they were sold on that

this organization and the programs and the projects they were offering were

beneficial and met the needs of that line department.

Again,

security always was hinging on the economic times, particular priorities that

may be addressed in that particular year and things may change. What is here and

what will need to be clarified so everybody is on an even playing field, is

exactly what is meant by long-term sustainability, the processes around if

things change. If priorities change dramatically in the need in society, if it's

around a mental health issue, if it's around physical inclusion issue, if it's

around a social development issue, how do we adjust the budget lines here? Will

the line departments still have access to additional pots of money that can then

address some of those other particular needs?

I know

it has been noted here, and my colleague here had noted from Ferryland: What

about new organizations coming into the process? How do you deal with things

like that? How do you ensure groups that have that ability to offer a program,

come in somewhere along the way? And I know the minister will outline that, and

it has been outlined somewhat here, but just a little bit more detail would be

easy to explain it.

I know

my colleague from Labrador West outlined exactly some of the processes there but

you have to dig down because there are a multitude of different agencies that

have different needs, have different approaches to stuff, even their own

internal structures may not fit directly with the bureaucratic process we have.

So we may have to modify, or in some cases we may have to train them and support

them to be able to modify their structure so it meets the particular needs here

so they can continue to offer the services that they do.

We've

seen over the years the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested

by government, taxpayers' money to return a billion dollars' worth of services

by the partnerships that have been developed. A process like this gives that

ability to ensure that we maximize where we are with it.

The

legislative process, while we understand some would say it's an administrative

structure here, no doubt it is, the senior bureaucrats would need to have it

because they have to ensure that each category adds up and the columns all meet

the needs of the criteria and the policy, and Treasury Board has to sign off and

Cabinet has to sign off, and the taxpayers and the Auditor General has to be

happy that that money is being allocated. What I like about this now, it also

gives an opportunity for agencies outside there to do their direct planning.

So as we

look at some of the things here about how we move it forward in dealing with

section 26, there's no doubt it's an opportunity for us in this House here to

open up a bigger discussion around, particularly, how we prioritize what's

important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There has to be a better

understanding.

In some

line department which was done it's unfortunate that in our cycle of

governance, every decade or so the administration of the day will take a process

and do a real analysis of the funding sources we have out there in the

partnerships, in the not-for-profit sector and in some of the other agencies

that we support through special program funding, about where the priorities are.

Because every so often we have to reassess where we go when there is limited

amounts of money and we all know there are always limited amounts of money. No

matter if the oil price is at $50 or $75 or $100, there's always a demand on

your revenues. And you still have to have a mechanism in play to ensure you

prioritize what the citizens of this province feel are most important.

So as we

go through this whole process, and we'll have a good dialogue here and we'll

have an open discussion, my opinion here is that everybody wants this to work.

Everybody wants to ensure that the agencies they deal with on a day-to-day basis

have stability there, and have an ability to have some vision about long-term

planning.

One of

the biggest issues and one of the biggest challenges that the not-for-profit

sector will tell you in Newfoundland and Labrador is being able to recruit

long-term staff, because in the not-for-profit sector there's not a lot of

security around year-to-year funding. The first principle in life is the

survival of yourself and your family, your core thing, but people come in very

principled, very trained, very experienced about being able to help

organizations but, unfortunately, because of the demands for their own financial

needs, the security is not there. Long-term partners find it harder to build

into something.

The

outcomes in particular programs or project funding is hard to measure because

just as you get up and get started and get staff trained, get your message out

to the general public, recruit the proper participants, assess some of the

challenges that you ran into, get to a point where you now think we can move

this to the next stage, funding no longer exists. The organization has to

prioritize somewhere else because it only has limited funding on a year-to-year

basis and things have changed. So this is a great opportunity for us to be able

to put that on an even playing field and start to move things forward.

I've had

the experience over the years to work with some organizations who have come in

at an entry level and particularly wanted to find out that they were just going

to represent the general masses of what the issues may be, but took on a life of

their own and particularly started to develop programs and services that were

immensely successful and really filled a void in our society that we weren't

offering in line departments because we didn't have the resources or the

expertise, or we weren't quite sure if that was exactly our mandate or we

weren't at the grassroots level or the front-line process of being able to

assess what's going on.

And I

just throw a couple Choices for Youth, and we all know the valuable work that

they do. The Community Youth Networks, for those who have them in their

respective regions, the valuable work that they do, everything from employment

initiatives to mental health inclusion supports to educational upgrading to all

the social community development assets there.

They're

only a small group of the thousands that we have in this great province of ours

who are driven. A key point here that needs to be outlined, it's the tens of

thousands of volunteers who will see the benefit coming from this long-term

sustainability. They're the ones who once a month, at minimum, sometimes two,

three, four times week meet with their boards, meet with their staff to try to

improve what's happening; try to fight for every dollar to ensure that the

lights stay on and the doors are open; that kids come through the doors, seniors

come through the doors or people with special needs come through the doors to

avail of a certain particular service.

selling this, outlining this, making it less bureaucratic and less intrusive

but, at the same time making, it accountable because there's not one volunteer

out there who doesn't want to stand on their laurels that they're doing a great

job and they're accountable for every cent they spend and every cent they

receive. Because the more that they can prove and the more that they can boast

about the great work they're doing, the more comfortable they feel about being

able to come to another partner and say give us more. Give us more and I'll tell

you why, because what you're giving us is going to benefit everybody in society.

So it's

an opportunity here for the volunteer sector to say we got a little bit of

breathing space. We got a bit of breathing space because now we can concentrate

on not every day worrying about the ticket draws or worrying about the next

corporate event that we've got to try to plan. We can now worry about the energy

in a board meeting of not being 20 minutes on programs and two hours on

fundraising; it can be the opposite.

It can

be 20 minutes on our fundraising because they still have a responsibility to

do their part, to ensure that the programs and that have the financial ability

to expand, but they can now spend the bulk of their time concentrating on how

they develop programs and services that improve particular lives of the citizens

in their area and particularly how they make partnerships.

Partnerships are not always about the financial benefits; they're also about the

resource benefits, the social workers, the nurses that may be in the

communities, the community leaders, the legal professionals, the social

development people, the recreational specialist. All these are important

components to ensure any not-for-profit organization or any agency that we as

government, as the stewards of the taxpayers' money, partner with out there to

ensure that we get a better return on our investment.

So I do

say there will be a few questions when we get to Committee for the minister to

clarify but, in principle, I think this is great. From a logistical point of

view, I think it's a great amendment to the bill. From an operational point of

view, I think it will be beneficial to everybody. We just need to ensure that

what we're offering and what we're going to partner with, with these

organizations, it's clear, it's precise, it's clean and it's accessible. And if

we find a way here because we're streamlining what we're doing, to be able to

keep that same resource, or the same human resource that we had within the

department, that now can lend another added support.

Again,

it could be in training in a way, it could be in helping how they do their

financial recording, it could be how they develop their own HR plans whatever

we can do to improve that process, improves the process for government. Because

it goes in a cycle. The better equipped the not-for-profit sector is, the better

the partnership is with government. The better the partnership is with

government, the better the partnership becomes with the private sector that

support the not-for-profit sector. So it's a cycle here that all on the same

page will make things work that much more effective and efficient.

So, Mr.

Speaker, on that, I will take my seat. But I do want to, again, commend the

minister for moving this forward, and do caution that we ensure that all the

organizations out there do have proper access to funding and that we do have a

serious look at some of the cuts that happened last year to a lot of these

organizations. Because even three-year funding, at the levels that were cut last

year, is not sustainable. I've worked with a number of these organizations over

the last number of months to see how they could get over the hump from last year

because it was mid-year when they had to make the cuts.

And I

give credit to the DF Barnes of the world and the Hickman Motors and the

hundreds of other organizations who stepped up to bail out those organizations

in that year, but it's the accumulated years that are going to be challenges for

these organizations. So I ask that we go back you're doing something that's

good; let's rectify something that wasn't so good a few months ago. Keep

everybody on an even playing field; give everybody the resources they need, make

this partnership work for everybody in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward in the Committee asking a few more questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

It seems like I got lot of

support here this morning which is

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

It's kind of overwhelming

here on this Wednesday morning, the first Wednesday morning, where most of us

have sleep in our eyes and still thinking about the dreams we had the night

before, but

AN HON. MEMBER:

What did you dream about?

MR. KING:

Dreamt about the speech this

morning.

Mr.

Speaker, it's an honour to stand here today and speak to something very

important to the District of Bonavista, and this bill, Bill 66, is going to

improve the financing and the long-term stability for many community-based

organizations within my district.

First of

all, I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance and her department for bringing

forward two good pieces of legislation, both today and yesterday. Long, long

overdue and it's a big step forward for this province and for the people with

the release of Public Accounts yesterday and with the multi-year funding for

community-based groups.

Within

the District of Bonavista this is, as I mentioned, of vital, vital importance to

us. The tourism and culture industry within the District of Bonavista is one of

the largest economic drivers within the region. Last summer, we saw a boom in

our district that we'd hadn't seen, I think, previous to that. And people are

coming to our region, not just for tourism but for culture as well.

I know

there's been a little controversy over that, but it's great to see that we put a

new or not new focus, but we put our focus back on tourism and culture because

it is a major employer for our area, and we have some great groups who are doing

some good things.

When I

started this political journey in 2014, I met with a number of groups. First, I

had to win a nomination and then win a general election, so it gave me pretty

much 16 months of pounding the pavement, meeting with community-based

organizations, and knocking on doors. One of the biggest things I've heard from

community-based groups such as Rising Tide Theatre, the Trinity Historical

Society, Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation, Elliston tourism, Home

from The Sea, the list goes on and on is that they wanted some stability to

move their organizations forward.

What

they felt when I talked to them, time after time after time, in the lead up and

after the general election of 2015 is that they wanted this funding. They felt

that the previous administration their concerns fell on deaf ears. And it's

nice to see them support this bill today because they certainly didn't support

it years ago.

What

they felt is there was uncertainty for these organizations, a delayed hiring, a

delay of delivering the programs. It didn't allow for professional opportunities

for their staff. It was a detriment for their growth and created an inability

for long-term planning. So, Mr. Speaker, this is where we're getting here today;

it provides stability and it provides for long-term planning and growth.

After

the general election, myself and the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation met with these groups prior to the Chamber of Commerce annual general

meeting, and again this topic came up. They wanted this long-term funding so

that they can have more stability and that they can grow our economy on the

Bonavista Peninsula and in the District of Bonavista.

brought this forward to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

and also the Office of Public Engagement last year when I held two public

engagement sessions for the Government Renewal Initiative back in February 2016.

The one in Bonavista and one in Trinity were very interesting or, excuse Port

Rexton, were very interesting because that is where a lot of our tourism and

culture industry is based. It was third in 2015 compared to my buddy there for

Lewisporte Twillingate who looks after Twillingate, but I think may have

changed in 2016. He's saying it did, but I tend to disagree.

But what

they said to me is, you know what, we need this. They said if anything else and

you get out of this GRI, we need this. So what I did was I wrote the reports,

sent it off to the Office of Public Engagement, pestered the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board saying this is a benefit to us, pestered the

Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation about this, because it is

important.

So when

I told some of the groups about this change, in an email on Monday, I got a

number of responses back. I'm going to take a couple of minutes to read them

out.

This is

from Donna Butt of Rising Tide Theatre in relation to this multi-year funding:

It is something we have been asking government to do for a long time. It is

something I and others discussed with Minister Mitchelmore and yourself excuse

me for using his name, but I am reading if from the email.

Multi-year funding will enable Rising Tide to engage long-term planning in all

aspects of our organization. It will help us in development of new plays that

reflect the history and culture of this magnificent province that we so proudly

share with all those who come here. It will allow for strategic planning and

advanced marketing.

It will

allow us in continuing to expand our activities and grow and maintain our

shoulder season. This is very important. We often see a big boom in our area

from the end of June, when the school lets out, until the end of August, early

September. This funding can also help bring in new people to the shoulder

seasons, which would keep restaurants and businesses open longer and employ

people longer.

It will

contribute to our long-term stability and our ability to lever federal funds. It

will allow us to continue our artistic and economic contribution to our

community, our region and our province. That's from Donna Butt of Rising Tide

Theatre.

I got

another email back from Jim Miller, who's the chair of the board of directors

for Trinity Historical Society who wrote this on behalf of his organization:

Establishing multi-year funding for organizations such as the Trinity Historical

Society and others across the province that are community-based organizations

will be beneficial for permitting long-term planning and just as important, if

not more so, is the financial stability that will bring to the operations of

these organizations.

We will

now be able to plan ahead for human resources, professional development,

research, exhibit development, preservation of our historic sites, archival

materials and artifacts, as well as work on long-term and strategic planning

I'm seeing a theme here for the future of our organizations.

As you

know, from our prior discussions and this gets back to what I talked about

with yourself during pre-budget consultations, which was in 2016, meetings with

Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation in Bonavista over the past

year or so, and other times when all of us on this email have had an opportunity

to say that we've spoken to the benefit and importance of establishing

multi-year funding, I and the board of the Trinity Historical Society are very

pleased to know that this change is forthcoming and our voices are heard.

Another leader in the tourism culture industry.

I also

have here from Edith Samson, the executive director of Sir William Ford Coaker

foundation in Port Union: The Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation and

myself are very pleased to know that this change is about to happen, and that we

have been heard another recurring theme, that we're being heard. As we move

ahead with the development of Port Union, the built heritage, creating a

creative economy for Port Union, working with various sources for the

redevelopment of the heritage properties and following up with the applications

to Canada's tentative list for UNESCO heritage world status and the Geo Park for

the Bonavista Peninsula, having multi-year funding provides stability to work on

these opportunities.

I'm

assuming that this multi-year funding will be applicable to the Cultural

Economic Development Program, CEDP, within the Department of Tourism, Culture,

Industry and Innovation I'm still getting used to the name which we all

apply to as arts and heritage organizations, We really are thankful that our

voices are heard and taken into account for this change in the act. We really

look forward to how discussions regarding the programming in the future can

include some of our ideas that may be beneficial to community-based

organizations, participants who take

part in various programs and how it might

serve the region and province better in the future.

So I

touched on the CEDP and I have to find my notes here just to get a little

background for those who don't know; bear with me. Here is it. So CEDP supports

arts and heritage organizations. So this includes major music festivals as well.

It has a track record of no less than four years, organizations that apply for

CEDP. Managerial, professional, financial and technical capacity, in other words

excuse me, in other things, you buy the boots for the workers, all this is

funded under CEDP. It provides long-term viability, cultural activities, is

member based and has industry-wide benefits.

So some

of the groups that actually benefit from CEDP would be the Trinity Historical

Society, Rising Tide Theatre, Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation, but

also here off the Avalon you have the Resource Centre for the Arts, the Writers'

Alliance, you have Gross Morne Theatre Festival and you have the East Coast

Trail Association. So quite a number of organizations will benefit from this.

I just

posted I was speaking to this on Facebook, so just recently or within the last

few minutes before I spoke, another leader in our cultural community, Geoff

Adams who operates the New Curtain Theatre and the Curtain Call Caf in Milton,

said to this and he's always has some difficulty in getting long-term funding

said: This will allow a group like our foundation to maintain our facility and

activities here in Milton. So that's another group that will benefit from this.

So I'm

proud of this legislation. I'm very, very happy here today to speak to this, the

benefit that it has to the District of Bonavista and the opportunities it

brings, not just to my district but to the province in general. So if anything

we get out of this, here are some key take-aways that I've gotten from talking

to industry leaders with regard to our community-based organizations. It allows

them for long-term and strategic planning, development of new programs, plays,

activities. Strategic marketing, that's bringing in new people to our area;

better able to leverage other funding sources. So whether it be in the private

sector or from the federal government, these are having that stability, having

the ability to match other funds, allows them greater freedom to get these

additional funds which will help them grow.

This

legislation will make it more effective for them to hire. They're going to know

the numbers they can have for their organization earlier. That way they can go

out, do their hiring process, get better people and train those people. It

offers better professional development opportunities. So if you know you have

the funding available to put into your organization, now you are able to have

better professional development opportunities to grow yourself as a person, to

be an expert, to highlight the things you have within your organization. That, I

think, is just as important as anything else.

Finally,

most importantly, it provides stability for these organizations. Time and time

again over the 14, 15 months that I was on the campaign trail, and in the 15, 16

months since I've been an MHA, that's what I've been hearing from these

organizations. They want stability. They want the ability to operate their

organizations, to provide a good tourism and culture experience in the District

of Bonavista, in our region, and in our province, so that we draw people from,

not just our own province but from around the world like we have over the past

number of years. This is going to be able to grow the District of Bonavista, to

grow our industry, to see more people in our region and we will see the spin-off

economic benefits from this piece of legislation.

So with

that, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board and her staff for bringing this forward. It's been an honour to speak to

this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly be supporting this bill.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I really

am pleased to stand this morning though it's morning and speak to Bill 66.

And if ever there was a bill that brings some good news, and we get many of

them. We get some that are just housekeeping but this is a bill that brings good

news, that brings good news to the literally thousands of people in the province

who are involved in their communities in actually providing services that are

essential to their communities.

I speak

as a number of others in the House could, I think from my own personal

experience because I was involved in the not-for-profit community-based sector

prior to being elected and having the honour of standing in this House, and I

know the stress. I know the stress of being in charge of an organization and the

stress of wondering from year to year, what funding are you going to have. Are

you going to be able to continue the work?

Also,

not just the stress of not knowing, but also the time every year of doing

project proposals and the time and energy that has to go into project proposals

or funding for operations because that happens as well. It's not just projects

but also funding operations which is what this bill is covering, every year

having to put an application together, it takes time, it takes energy and I

think now, thank goodness, will become unnecessary.

There

has been a funny attitude in government and dealing with government. Again, I'm

speaking this from the perspective of when I worked in community-based

organizations. You were almost made to feel guilty when you made your

application for a year to think well, what makes you think you're going to get

the money the year after, why should you assume you're going to get more than

this year's money.

Yet,

here you were with a community group that was doing very important work in the

community, recognized by the government as important work, yet you were made to

feel guilty that you could assume that you're going to get money the year after

that. That's not the way it should be. This bill is changing that, and I think

that's extremely important because government and the community have come to

really depend on the services that are being offered.

As I was

listening to my colleagues naming off groups in their districts and in their

jurisdictions who are community-based groups doing great work, I thought I

better not start trying to rattle off names because there are so many,

obviously, in St. John's with the population we have and so many in my own

district that I don't want to miss anybody. I think the important thing is the

recognition and this is what is so important that the work the community

groups are doing is essential work for the good of the community.

whether we're talking about women's organizations who are helping all kinds of

women deal with issues such as spousal violence, economic insecurity, housing

issues, whether it's the community centres. We have a number of community

centres in the city that also receive funding and which are essential to their

communities doing things like after school programs, mentoring programs, even

child care programs in some cases, programs of enhancement for children.

There's

one community centre here in the city, I know, who actually has a program of

getting students involved in playing instruments, stringed instruments. There

are all kinds of things going on. We also have the groups that work with at-risk

youth and groups who are working with adults to address mental health issues,

housing issues, drug addictions. I mean the list goes on.

actual fact, a lot of our community groups are doing the work that we expect of

government services. So if we recognize how important that work is, and

government must because over the last years governments in this province, and

both partiers sitting here were part of that, have been downloading services,

downloading things on to the community group shoulders. So all the more reason

than to make sure that it is easier for them to do their work, and the

multi-year funding will certainly do that.

I look

at the eligibility criteria, and the eligibility criteria are good. I agree with

them. In order to qualify organizations must be community based. I would assume

the government is going to define what community based means. Funding is for a

maximum of three years but groups may reapply. That's good. That's because if

the work they're doing is essential and if their reports show that that work is

essential and is really doing something good for the community, it's good to

know they can reapply. They'll need to reapply; must have been in operation for

three years before they apply. That makes sense as well; must remain in good

financial and performance standing with the provincial government. That makes

absolute sense; must maintain an active presence in the province, and that makes

sense too.

I notice

that we don't have the word of accountability in there but I'm sure the criteria

with regard to remaining in good financial and performance standing with the

provincial government has in it the meaning of accountability, openness and

transparency so that the people know that what this group is supposed to be

doing is happening.

I've

checked and I know this is not the case now but some years ago, a long time ago,

back in the 1990s when I was working in the community, I was getting our

organization was getting money from a provincial department and we'd get it

every year. I used to ask, I actually said, what are the criteria for my

reporting mechanism? And the department had no criteria for the reporting

mechanism. It was even said to me, well, you know, they didn't expect a report.

I said but I'm getting $100,000, surely I should have to report it. That has

changed, but that did exist.

I would

always put a report in because I wanted to be accountable. I didn't want it said

that they didn't know what we were doing. I would put my report in but there was

no criteria for the report. So that was really quite shocking. At the time, I

remember really, really being shocked about it because at the same time we were

getting federal government money and certainly the restrictions that were there

for reporting were very strong. The good thing about the federal government

funding was that it was also multi-year, so they had two good things going for

them. I do know the reporting mechanisms now are in place, and that's extremely

important.

One of

the things that I'm concerned about, and I would like the minister to speak to

when the time comes, is we need to know exactly what is meant by community based

and we need to know what is the definition of programs for community-based

organizations, because various departments do have money for community-based

groups. So what is the definition that will show who can apply and what programs

are covered by the legislation?

I don't

see that in the bill itself and maybe that's going to be in regulations, as some

of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked about that, but I think

there's a lot of detail we need to have in place in the regulations to ensure

that when a group applies it knows that nobody is going to say to them well, how

do you know you're going to get money from this program? What makes you think

this program is covered? We have to be sure we know exactly what programs are

covered; what funding programs are covered when it comes to organizational

funding for community groups.

Can

groups who are dealing with the arts, will they be considered community based?

Will they be covered by that? Or will it just be project funding for them? What

does community based mean? I notice the criteria say: must maintain an active

presence in the province, but they must be community based. So we're going to

have to have a definition of both of those things in the regulations so that

there'll be no doubt, because we don't want confusion among the community-based

groups.

You see

one group being told yes, you're community based and you're covered, and another

group being told no, you're not covered, didn't you know that? So we really do

have to have clarity. The legislation is great, but it doesn't paint any of

those pictures, and I think we need that. We need to make sure that things are

clear.

One of

the things we need to think about, and I know this is a hard time for

government, we know all that. It's one thing to have the multi-year funding but

we also need to assess the amount of money that's going to our groups. There

have been cutbacks over the years to organizations, like the women's

organizations that are doing essential work. They really don't have adequate

funding for salaries. They'll still be penny-pinching; it's just that they'll

know for three years how much penny-pinching they have to do.

And I'm

not being negative here, I'm just pointing out a reality. That we expect a lot

from the community groups. We expect a lot from them with regard to the services

they deliver, and there is still going to be whether they get the funding for

one year or three years, there is still going to be the whole pressure of having

to have, of going after project funding in order to deliver the programs they

want to deliver. Because in actual fact, an awful lot of the programming that's

going on doesn't come from the operational funding, it comes from project

funding;

whereas I think there are some of the programs that sometimes get

offered are an essential part of the organization and should be part of

operational funding.

I think

we do have issues to look at. We have a long way to go in looking at how we fund

community-based groups. They scramble all the time, there's no doubt about that,

and the multi-year funding will help alleviate one level of that so they have

some security as they scramble for the rest of the money they need to carry on

programs. So I know, we all know organizations that when you ask, well, how many

positions are permanent? Well, it would only be one or two positions that are

permanent, and then other positions are always contingent on getting project

funding. So as long as you have a particular project going on for a while, or

you can pick up new projects, you may have a person on a staff, and a good

person who does great work, but you always have to be finding project funding

for that person.

So this

is an issue that's not going to change with the multi-year funding. I mean,

that's a reality. The multi-year funding will help so that they have security

and know they have the operational funding, but we still do not have enough

money in the operational funding, and it will not make up for the program

funding that's needed.

Government still has to look at, how are we going to make sure that our groups

have the money to do what we expect them to do? Because that's what has

happened, they are now expected to do work that once upon a time they didn't

have to do. And there's still a question of, with some of the work that some

groups are doing, especially in the women's movement, should there not be, for

example, assigned positions where there's a community link between a government

body and the organization, maybe social workers that are assigned to actually

work with organizations. So there are many multiple ways in which we need to

look at how we can make to support better the work of the community groups.

A lot of

groups will not stand and say what I just said, because the groups are always in

a position of being there with their hand out and hoping they're going to get

funding. So they don't have the ability to stand or go to a minister or to say

publicly, we still have a lot of problems, we are still feeling the workload of

the downloading onto our shoulders of services that really government should be

offering. We really are feeling the stress of not having enough staff to meet

the demand. All of that is there, and there's no doubt about that.

So we

have to continue to meet with them. We have to continue to look at their needs,

their funding needs for staff, because they're not being met. The multi-year

funding is not going to change that. We have to look at the need for they need

money for staff training because more and more they are dealing with issues in

the community that are complex and you have to have staff who can deal with

those complex needs that are in the community.

You

don't have automatically money for training in the operational funds; this is

very serious. As well, groups need to have training in best practices in

governance and financial accountability. So sometimes groups may not meet the

standard that we would like to see when it comes to accountability for the use

of money or even maybe for how accounting practices are kept within the

organization, and they will need money to do training with staff on that level

as well.

So in

looking at the money that is needed by a community organization, we really do

need to look at all of the facets. The multi-year funding is great, but we still

have to do much more to take the pressure off our groups, our groups who are

doing such tremendous work out there but who work many, many hours over what

they are paid for, who spend much time in volunteer work besides the work that

they're paid for and who just totally give of themselves to the community.

Burnout is high in community-based work; burnout is very high.

So I'm

happy that we're doing this multi-year funding. I'm happy to support this bill,

but I think there's much more that needs to be talked about. I hope that the

minister will speak more to some of the issues I've raised and if I don't hear

an answer in particular to my question with regard to the programming that will

be covered, then I will ask that when we get into Committee.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly welcome everyone here on a Wednesday morning. It certainly great to be

up and awake in the morning, as the Member for Humber Bay of Islands was just

saying to me, certainly great to be here in the House of Assembly on a

Wednesday.

course, this was only made possible through some of the great efforts from the

Minister of Justice and our Government House Leader with some changes to the

legislation that would allow us to be here in the morning. Certainly, this is

giving us an opportunity to be more efficient and more effective as we plan

properly throughout the year.

Plan is

the key word because that's what today's legislation is all about; it's all

about proper planning. It's very similar to yesterday's legislation. It was also

an amendment to the Financial

Administration Act and that was all about allowing people to plan. So

yesterday's legislation was referring to the release of Public Accounts that was

going to give the people of the province, industry, business, you name it, the

opportunity to see the numbers so we can plan accordingly and work going

forward.

Today's

legislation is no different. It's going to give groups, organizations in

communities the opportunity to plan properly. Planning properly is really

important, and that's something that our government is committed to. In fact,

this piece of legislation was actually one of the initiatives in

The Way Forward document. And if

you'll bear with me for a moment, I'll read that.

One-Window, Multi-Year Community Grants (Action 2.12): Our Government will

implement a strategic one-window, multi-year approach to community grant

funding. This will ensure an efficient and consistent approach to

administration, accountability and evaluation. Financial systems and legislative

frameworks will be modified which is what we're doing here today as

required to facilitate the development of multi-year funding arrangements with

community organizations where appropriate. Multi-year funding will enable

community groups to plan more efficiently.

MR. LETTO:

Another promise kept.

MR. FINN:

Thank you very much, the

Member for Lab West who just pointed out, this is something that we committed to

in the fall and you're seeing legislation here today that will directly affect

that.

So this

is Bill 66, as noted by some of the previous speakers,

An Act to Amend the

Financial Administration Act. As the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury noted in her opening remarks, currently this legislation would be

restricted for multi-year funding, be restricted to the purchase of good and

services. So this change essentially would give the ability for community-based

groups and there have certainly been a number of questions asked. The Member

for Ferryland had a number of specific questions, and the Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi, and I'm certain that the Minister of Finance will address

some of those, of course, when we get to the Committee stage of debate here

today.

But I

guess, from the outset, without getting into any of the weeds here, this is a

great piece of legislation. The ability for organizations to plan properly

this is an obstacle that's been pointed out by non-profit and community groups

for years. For years and years and years, organizations have been asking for

some type of commitment so they can plan properly in order to provide programs

and services to individuals and communities.

And so,

I recall distinctly going to pre-budget consultations held by the former

administration and during those pre-budget consultations the former

administration's system was quite simple. They'd sit everybody up in a room;

there'd be a square table or a bit of rectangle or u-shape, if you will, the

Minister of Finance and/or any other Members of the House may be present and

groups would sit down in front of them and just plead their case. You would have

a 20-minute window to just pour your heart out and just beg and plead and say

this is what we want, this is what we want, this is what we want.

Quite a

bit of different approach that we've taken, where we've asked groups to have a

sit down and a discussion and dialogue with us; but, under that former way, I

can tell you, I sat in the room four years,'07, '08, 2009, 2010 and I saw

community groups after community groups come in and specifically ask for some

type of stability around multi-year funding some type of stability.

It's

something that I think has been well known across the non-profit sector. I think

if you talk to anybody at the Community Sector Council, any of the groups

involved a number of individuals have referenced specific organizations today.

I think if you talk to anybody, you will clearly understand that this is

something that's been asked for, for quite some time.

One of

the reasons why this is really promising to me is I come from a non-profit

background. Just before becoming elected, I spent eight years working with the

Community Education Network in Stephenville. The Community Education Network is

an organization that has been established for 25 years. In fact, they just

recently celebrated their 25 years of existence this past fall.

The

organization was originally founded due to low education and high school dropout

rates on the Port au Port Peninsula back in the later '80s and early '90s. Since

the organization was founded in 1991, it grew substantially over the years.

Currently, they provide programs to address all the social detriments of health

and they do everything from early education and childhood learning from our

Family Resource Centre programs to Adult Basic Education programs.

specifically worked with employment initiatives as an employment counsellor, as

well as with housing and homelessness. So what I can tell you about this

organization is that they receive funds from a variety of different government

departments. They receive funds from Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. They

receive core funding from Advanced Education, Skills and Labour right now. They

receive funds from the Department of Education. They receive funds from the

Department of Justice, the Office of Public Engagement, the Department of

Health. So when you look at an organization from the outset and you look at all

the programs they offer, one thing that people don't often think about is who

administers that behind the scenes.

What I

can tell you is I was fortunate enough to have a conversation with the the

financial administration officer with the Community Education Network and what I

understand is that this time of year, in particular, as we approach the year-end

fiscal, the financial administration officers are trying to do some wizardry

because they have no idea what they're going to do going into April 1 or moving

forward into the next fiscal year.

We have

organizations saying to their employees: Okay, well, your program is going to

expire on March 31 and we're not quite sure if we got any commitment from

government yet moving forward. So we hope that we have some funds kind of set

aside in a pocket, if you will, to keep you employed. So staff really have no

certainty. They don't know if their program is going to get funded or continue.

The inability to comprehend that really puts financial administration officers

at a loss. It really puts them at a loss as to how to move forward.

This

particular pot of funding and again a commitment made by the Premier in

The Way Forward vision document will

address that uncertainty. Again, just as I had mentioned, addressing the

uncertainty of Public Accounts was addressed yesterday. I'm very pleased to see

some support from the Members opposite. As questions were raised, I'm sure the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will have every opportunity

to address some of those specific questions.

But I

guess just to point out to Members opposite and to the folks that are listening,

you have to start somewhere and by putting in this legislation today, the

framework is there; this is the first step. As they've mentioned as well, I'm

sure the regulations will come forward in due course. Because it's important to

note that this is going to give an opportunity and potential for groups to

apply, baring they met some of the criteria. And the criteria that will be set

out will be outlined as the regulations unfold, so just kind of important to

point that out.

Again,

I'm extremely pleased to see this commitment. It's a positive step in the right

direction. It's just another example of us listening as a government, as we did

in the spring session of last year, in the fall session as well. We've

introduced legislation that people of the province have been asking for, for

years.

Right

now, they've all acknowledged that groups have been asking. I heard the Member

for Conception Bay East Bell Island, the Member for Ferryland said the same

thing, they realize that groups have been asking for this funding. So it kind of

leaves me asking the question: Well, why didn't they do anything about it? Why

didn't any legislation come from the other side when they were in power to

address this, if they had known about it for years?

This is

no different today than what we did with the procurement legislation in the fall

absolutely no different. We've heard from groups and communities and municipal

governments all over this great province; they wanted to see some changes to the

procurement act. So, as a government, we took that advice and we acted on it.

This is

no different today than the presumptive cancer care for volunteer firefighters

no different. It's another example of something that the people and the

volunteers in this province have been asking for, for years. And so, while the

former administration is here today, the Members opposite, they're happy to

support the bill, I'm sure they'll have a number of questions as mentioned, but

I'd be remiss not to mention that this is just another example of something that

they heard for years and years and years and just didn't act on just

absolutely didn't act on.

Again,

it's all about planning. It's all about planning and giving people the ability

to plan properly. Uncertainty, questions and no foresight as to how to move

forward leaves everybody scrambling. So you have community groups, as I just

mentioned, come March 31, they don't know if they got someone employed on April

1. They have no idea. Yet, they're providing a great service and we all

understand that the thousands of volunteers and the folks that work on the board

of directors in the various community groups, we understand that they work very

hard and everybody applauds that. Well, why can't we just give them an ounce of

certainty? Why can't we just give them a small degree of certainty? And that's

what this piece of legislation does today.

I'd be

shocked if we didn't receive support from all sides. As mentioned, this is

something that would have an impact on community groups across the province. I

would imagine that there's a community group in just about every other district

that's represented here in the House that would have an impact on this.

You talk

about everything from youth organizations to senior's organizations,

organizations with mental health initiatives, Schizophrenia Society, for

example. I mean, there are so many groups that could benefit from this but,

again, important to note that they would have to meet some of the basic criteria

as outlined in the legislation regulations. Some of them, minimum requirements,

as alluded to by the Minister of Finance when she gave her opening remarks.

again, it's all about the ability to plan, to plan wisely and just another

example of how our Premier and this government is listening, and is listening

intently, for some of the things that the Members opposite had every opportunity

to introduce year after year.

I'm very

pleased to see this legislation put in place today. A huge thanks to the

Minister of Finance and her staff of course. A lot of times it would be remiss

not to thank the staff who've been involved in putting the piece of legislation

together. And I know that there are a number of ministers that have been

involved in this legislation as well, and I know the Minister for Children,

Seniors and Social Development and the good staff of her department have had a

huge role to play in this. And I look forward I believe we might be hearing

from her a little later on, but certainly 100 per cent for me for Bill 66. I

look forward to support from all sides.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place, and thank you very much for the

opportunity to speak today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear1

MR. SPEAKER:

Before the Speaker recognizes

the next hon. Member to speak, I'd certainly like to recognize and apologize to

the previous speaker. I recognized him from the District of Stephenville and it

should have been Stephenville Port au Port, my apologies.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm only going to take a couple of moments because I think pretty much

everything that could be said, has been said. I have some questions as well,

although I believe they're probably the same questions that the Member for

Ferryland already raised, so he'll probably get to ask them before I do. So if I

get the answers, fine; if not, when I get to Committee and there's something

that hasn't been answered, I'll ask.

I think

it's fair to say everybody supports this piece of legislation; we all know the

valuable work that the social sector does in our province, so many community

groups and organizations. There's a huge list of them, whether it be groups that

deal with addictions, or deal with youth, or deal with seniors, or whatever the

case might be there's numerous organizations that deal with different aspects

of health care. And they all do great work. We do need to support them, and

certainly when we invest in those organizations, we get a great return on that

dollar.

Obviously for them to function effectively, they need some certainty in terms of

their budgets from year to year. I've spoken to people in many organizations who

have that challenge every year in terms of wondering where the revenues are

going to come from, whether they can count on those government grants coming

through or not. A lot of them spend an inordinate amount of time doing

fundraising in anticipation of perhaps not receiving funding, and really their

efforts should be put towards the mandate of their organization as opposed to

selling tickets and doing golf tournaments, whatever they have to do to raise

money.

I know

there's going to be a certain amount of that as well, but that should not be

their primary focus. It should be on doing the great work that they're doing; I

think that providing the stability does that. I think one member talked about

the fact that it would certainly be helpful in leveraging funds from other

programs, other levels of government, perhaps private sector and so on, matching

funds and things like that. So I think it's a positive all around in that

regard.

Obviously, as the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi mentioned, this by no

means addresses the issue of whether or not an organization is receiving

adequate funding. That's a separate debate. It's linked to this, I suppose, but

I do see it as a separate debate. I guess that's part of the budget debate when

it comes forward. But there's no doubt, there are organizations that are

struggling because they don't have sufficient funding, and that needs to be

addressed as well as we're able to do so.

In terms

of providing some certainty for these organizations so they can plan three years

out and so on, I think it's a positive thing. As I said, I believe everyone's

going to support it, I certainly do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

pleased to stand here today and speak to the amendments to Bill 66. I won't take

very long because as my colleague across had said, many of the other topics have

been said. But I'd like to just say our government is committed to the community

organization and the commitment they make to the fabric of our community. So

it's important, and I'd like to use the word, consistency. This provides

consistency.

In my

previous life, I was an executive director for a not-for-profit organization and

consistency is what we always talked about as organization EDs, or executive

directors. And having that consistency, the ability to hire staff on a

longer-term basis, provide training and support to them. Also, not only for your

staff perspective, but also for your programs and services you're providing

the much-needed programs and services you're providing to the people that

utilize the use of the organization and use those services. So it's very, very

important, I believe, to have that consistency. It's something that charity

organizations have been asking for, for a very, very long time, and we're happy

to be delivering on a promise here today.

I'm

happy to highlight a couple of the organizations that come to my mind that I've

had the opportunity to work with, that will benefit quite heavily from funding

like this. The Kids Eat Smart Foundation is in this funding regime. They receive

$1.1 million a year. I'm a volunteer with Virginia Park Elementary. They receive

a breakfast program, along with 248 other schools in our province, which is

important. It provides 25,000 students per day with a nutritious meal.

It's

quite fitting that we're doing this, bringing this legislation in, especially

for this group today because it's the first day of nutrition month, which my

colleague next to me knows very, very well. And I'm happy to be part of that

organization. I know the consistency of having funding for a longer-term basis

will allow them to do bigger planning and more strategic planning that will

allow them to grow their service and hopefully reach out to more children and

provide a little bit more of an ability for them to plan, which is important in

any opportunity that we have to do that.

The

stability of funding is always a challenge in any charity that I've been a part

of or worked with and any opportunity we can have, as a government, to support

that, I think is an initiative that we should try to do. Like my colleagues have

mentioned before, I can't see anyone else in the House not supporting a move

like this to listen to the charities that have been speaking to us for so many

years, to allow them to have that stability that we all would like to have.

With

that note, I won't belabour it any longer. I'm pleased to support this, as a

former executive director and a former not-for-profit chair and involved in that

community just like many of us in this House, and I know that's going to make a

big difference to the ability that these executive directors have to deal with

each and every day. They spend a lot of their year applying for grants, for

year-over-year funding and this will alleviate that, at least cut it in a third

or two. I'm quite happy to be supporting this and be part of a government that's

willing to move in this direction.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

take a lot of time on this bill as well, but I just wanted to get up to say a

few words in support of the legislation. What we're doing here is we're changing

the Financial Administration Act .

The

Financial Administration Act is

an act

which governs the way we spend money and the way we account for the money that

we've spent. Yesterday, in Bill 65, we looked at changing the way that we

account for the way money is spent. That's a very positive change. It allows

people to see where we are financially and then it encourages a public debate

about how we spend money, how much we spend and things like that. So that was a

very positive change.

Today,

we're talking about another piece of legislation that will change the

Financial Administration Act of this

province in terms of enabling government departments to give funding for

community-based organizations for multi-year funding. So this will allow

organizations that do good work in our community to plan better, to be able to

have more stability in the work they do and will be able to for example, in

terms of people who work with community-based organizations, because of the way

they're funded, year by year, they don't have a lot of continuity. As they get

close to the end of the year contract, maybe they're concerned about whether the

funding will be given again for the following year. So this impacts on the

ability of community-based organizations to retain good employees, because

they're possibly looking for employment elsewhere that gives them more security

in their day-to-day lives.

So those

are some things. It allows the changes that are being made today allow

organizations to do a little more planning in terms of long-term planning in the

way they operate. They are able to plan for two- or three-year programs rather

than just one year programs because they have that certainty around the funding.

I just

wanted to say before I close, these community-based organizations are really

good value for money in terms of the way we spend taxpayers' dollars here. These

community-based organizations, I know I have a number in my district and

others from outside the district that services the area they provide many

different services and they provide them at a very cost-effective manner. They

leverage the work of volunteers. So the ability to improve the way we fund these

organizations is very important to the efficiency of these organizations and the

way they operate, and it's very important to the people in the communities that

are serviced by these organizations.

So it's

a very important piece of legislation. I want to compliment the government for

taking this approach, and also the Minister of Finance for bringing forward

these changes in legislation in a very timely manner. I just wanted to add my

voice and I'm pleased to see there's support on all sides of the House for this

piece of legislation. I think it holds a lot of potential in terms of the way we

fund organizations. So I'm pleased to support this piece of legislation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I certainly want to take a moment to thank all the Members of the House

who participated in the debate this morning, our first debate as part of the new

hours that the Standing Committee has put in place. I certainly appreciate the

participation from both sides of the aisle.

The

particular piece of legislation that we are debating today, for those listening

at home, just as a reminder, is an amendment to Bill 66,

An Act To Amend The

Financial Administration Act No. 3. This provides for the legislative changes

needed under the Financial Administration

Act , which governs portions of government spending .

It's going to allow for the establishment of a multi-year grants program for

community-based organizations around core funding.

Mr.

Speaker, last year's budget, if you looked at the numbers as they are reflected

in the Estimates, as many members in this House have already referenced and

there are a significant number of dollars that move through government into

community organizations or other organizations whether they are economic

organizations or regional health authorities, for example, Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing the total combined number for grants across government and in

the Estimates book, as by the Estimates definition of grants, is $4.07 billion

dollars.

So the

numbers that we're talking about today, to bring it back to the core discussion,

are those grants that are specifically for community-based organizations. The

Member for Ferryland in his comments earlier asked some questions about the

definition of community-based organizations, and certainly those organizations

that are representative of the community, or a significant segment of the

community, and are engaged in meeting the social, wellness, educational and

community development needs of the community. '

Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned earlier this morning, we have a cross-departmental team

working on the multi-year grants program. We have officials on that team from

the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; we have the Women's

Policy Office represented; we have Executive Council; we also have

representatives from CSSD, the Children, Seniors and Social Development

Department. We have representatives of the Finance Department as well as the

Office of the Comptroller General, and other departments such as the Department

of Education and Early Childhood Development would be asked to participate in

that work on an ongoing basis.

The

committee's work is continuing around the structure of multi-year grants for

community-based organizations, and once the regulatory framework has been

established that will be communicated to, first and foremost, community

organizations and certainly to the people of the province in a very transparent

and public way, so that they can be very clear, certainly for the community

organizations that will be able to avail of the multi-year funding, they will

know clearly that they are in that category and also provide opportunity for the

taxpayers of the province to have transparency into the criteria for eligibility

for multi-year grants.

We've

had a lot of discussion this morning from both sides of the House, I think, in

recognizing the significant importance of community organizations in our

province, and certainly many of us, if not all of us, recognize the challenges

that those organizations can be under.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things that I certainly wanted to mention in my closing

remarks, the Member for Conception Bay East spoke about the definition of

project or core funding. And based on the research that I've seen that was

reflective of the work that the former administration had done, there had been a

number of areas where the former administration had started to capture the

monies that was being delivered to community organizations as core grants and

the money that was being delivered as project grants.

There

may have been some disputes related to that under the former administration but

certainly officials are working to clarify, in our administration, the

definition of core grant and program funding. Because as Members of this House

would understand, program funding is specific to a program that a community

organization is offering, and core funding, operational funding, is the funding

that we're talking about when it comes to sustaining those community

organizations. Projects oftentimes can come and go depending on the strategic

plans for the organization, but core funding is specifically what we're talking

about.

I also

wanted to mention earlier, several Members talked about accountability for

community organizations and I think it's not lost on this hon. House. You know,

the situation that we saw earlier last year with a community-based organization

whose mandate was incredibility important in our community in the area of

supports for women, but an organization that certainly had significant community

questions as well as questions from Members of this House around the stewardship

around the funds that they were provided.

And I

think it is not lost on any of us that in this current environment where

community organizations work is so important and integral to being able to

support people in our community that the integrity and the accountability for

those funds is at the highest level.

For

those community organizations that set the bar very high in their own

organizations, I would like to say thank you and congratulations to their boards

of directors, their volunteers, their staffs, for taking a very best-in-class

approach to making sure that they are able to provide support and provide

disclosure around the accountability that they have for the funds that they

receive, whether they be funds that they received through the provincial

Treasury, through the federal treasury, or through community-based donors,

corporations, not-for-profits, et cetera, that also support our community

organizations. That accountability is certainly essential and I think expected

in every corner of our society in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize those Members that spoke

today. The Member for Ferryland spoke. I appreciated his early indication that

he was supportive of the amendment that we want to make to the

Financial Administration Act . He asked

some questions around the regulations. As I said earlier, the regulations will

be made public when established and, most importantly, they will be communicated

to the community organizations so they have a clear understanding of the

applicability of those regulations on their own organization.

I want

to thank the Member for Labrador West. I would certainly echo his comments,

particularly in my role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. He

mentioned the Women's Centre in Lab City that I've had the privilege of spending

some time with those fine volunteers and a great organization, as are many

across the province. And I also want to echo his comments on Hope Haven as well.

I think those organizations really do know how to, as they in their own words

say, stretch a penny.

I would

also like to thank the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island. I certainly

appreciate his support of these amendments. I understand and certainly have

appreciation for h