PDF Version

November 19, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 43

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the public gallery, I would like to welcome Scott and Joann Parsons,

of Parsons & Sons Transportation, who are joining us today for a Member's

statement.

Welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' s tatements today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of

Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Fortune Bay -

Cape la Hune, Harbour Main and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge a resident in my district who has recently

been acknowledged for his contribution to the music industry and the culture of

our province. I speak of Mr. Ralph O'Brien who was recently awarded the Lifetime

Achievement Award from MusicNL.

Ralph's

band, the Sons of Erin, were formed in Newfoundland in 1968, and it wasn't too

long before Ralph became a pillar of strength for the promotion of our music

culture and the development of skills for the up-and-coming young artists.

Ralph

and his bandmates are the godfathers of Irish, Celtic style of Newfoundland

traditional music. Ralph and the Sons of Erin took music from the kitchen and

put it on the stage.

Ralph

has remained the leader of the Sons of Erin for the past 50 years. We must also

recognize Ralph's other contribution to developing and promoting the next

generation of traditional Newfoundland musicians through his entrepreneurship

with his owning and operating Erin's Pub for nearly three decades that saw

hundreds of musicians entertaining and developing their talents. His venture

helped launch the careers of many traditional Newfoundland musicians such as

Great Big Sea, Shanneyganock, The Irish Descendants and Rum Ragged, to name a

few. His love of music and love for Newfoundland continues as Ralph continues to

entertain and serve as a music ambassador.

I ask

all Members in this House to join me in congratulating and thanking Ralph for

his years of dedicated service to the music industry and to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to recognize all participants and volunteers involved in the 31st annual

Peace Poster Contest. On November 15, the Bay Roberts Lions Club celebrated

eight young artists from All Hallows Elementary in North River, Amalgamated

Academy in Bay Roberts, Holy Redeemer Elementary in Spaniard's Bay and St.

Peter's Elementary in Upper Island Cove.

Approximately 180 students from grades six to eight participated in creating a

poster to represent the theme “Kindness Matters” for the annual Lions Club

International Peace Poster Contest. Judges, Lion Ivy Pynn, who is also the Peace

Poster chair, and teachers Corey Morgan and Robyn Newhook had the difficult task

of selecting one top poster and one honourable mention poster from each of the

four schools.

The four

winning posters created by Jessica Smith, Jane Margaret Evely, Kassy Keats and

Lauren Foley will advance to the district level contest on November 22 at 2:30

p.m. in St. John's, hosted by the Waterford Hospital Lions Club.

Mr.

Speaker, it certainly was a wonderful event and dinner to honour all involved. A

special thank you the Bay Roberts Lions club and congratulations to all of our

students. Keep up the great work. We are proud of you.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to extend congratulations to the Father Michael Francis Hayes

Council #7127 Knights of Columbus in Harbour Breton who recently celebrated

their 40th anniversary. Formed on June 4, 1978, the council recognized the

tremendous dedication of members that are still on their roster today achieved

the 40th milestone as well.

commend Knights Robert Coady, Roland Rogers, John George, Edward Whittle, Thomas

Cox, Raymond Hynes Junior and E. J. Gale for their outstanding citizenship and

commitment to improving the lives of everyone in their community.

Today, I

would also like to throw a special bouquet to Brother David Drake for achieving

the distinct honour of Knight of the Year in recognition for his significant

role in their service program and involvement in all aspects of the council.

Hats off

to Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hickey who received accolades for serving as an

inspiration to the council and the community. We thank them and every Knight

wholeheartedly for their activities and giving freely of their time and talents

to ensure the success of council programs.

I ask

that all hon. Members join me in wishing the Father Michael Hayes Council a very

happy 40th anniversary and thanking these dedicated Knights for such outstanding

service. I encourage them to keep put the fantastic work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize Parsons & Sons Transportation, a business in my district

whose spirit of giving has reached global proportions. In February of this year,

Zainab Jerrett of the We Care Foundation approached Parsons about purchasing a

second-hand school bus to donate to the children living in Nigeria.

Terry

Parsons, one of the owners, was quick to let the We Care Foundation know that

they didn't need to purchase a bus, because he was willing to donate one. It was

a no-brainer, Terry said.

addition to the bus, Parsons & Sons went a step further and initiated the

collection of books, clothing and school supplies. The outpouring of support for

this endeavour was incredible.

The bus

and the supplies were shipped to Nigeria in June of this year. A second vehicle

also made the journey because all the donated items could not fit on the bus.

Mr.

Speaker, this is such an inspiring story and I commend Terry and Scott Parsons,

staff members Kim Hewlett and Krista Pitcher, as well as everyone who

contributed to the fantastic gesture of kindness and generosity.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

delighted to recognize an organization that works tirelessly to serve the

community. The Gathering Place was recently inducted into the Duke of Edinburgh

Hall of Fame honouring exceptional volunteers.

As a

non-profit community service centre that provides help and social supports to

those who are homeless or precariously housed, The Gathering Place has

approximately 2,000 guests.

With

over 1,000 volunteers annually, the wide-ranging roles that volunteers fill is

truly incredible: everything from assisting in cooking and serving meals, to

running a clothing boutique, hair salon and computer room, to providing

professional services including medial and dental clinics and counselling.

Nominees for the Hall of Fame were assessed on criteria including role, impact,

reach, engagement and inspiration.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking The Gathering Place, including executive

director Joanne Thompson, the board, the staff, and the incredible volunteers

for all they do for the community and congratulating them on induction into the

Duke of Edinburgh Hall of Fame.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize November as National Adoption Awareness

Month.

This

month provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the care and commitment of

adoptive families throughout our province. Families who choose adoption are

making a life-changing decision that will create a meaningful difference in the

lives of all those involved.

It's

true what they say: Adopting one child won't change the world, but for that

child the world will change.

During

this month, there is also a need to remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that

there are children, teens and sibling groups in our province who are ready to

share their love, hopes and dreams with a permanent family.

As a

government, we are committed to strengthening the adoption process with an

additional investment of $395,000 over two years for dedicated resources to

ensure children and youth waiting to be adopted are matched with adoptive

families that will help to nurture their growth and development.

I invite

my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in celebrating the gift of adoption,

acknowledging the many families created through adoption and thanking the

individuals who have opened their hearts and provided a forever home for

children of all ages.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official

Opposition, I join the government in recognizing National Adoption Awareness

Month, and I too wish to celebrate families who have been joined through

adopted.

Mr.

Speaker, adoption is a special life-changing gift which matches loving and

caring families with children who are often in need of a permanent family.

Adoption provides children with much more than just a home. It provides them

with a loving family environment to grow up in where children can flourish and

attain their hopes and dreams.

I'd also

like to take a moment to thank the social workers within the adoption services

program for their continued efforts and diligence in supporting children and

youth who have been adopted or who are awaiting adoption within our province.

Keep up the fabulous work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the statement. I'm very pleased to join with government

in recognizing National Adoption Awareness Month. It is so important to

recognize the so many adoptive parents around the province for their

contributions to the lives of children; and many of whom just don't take a

single child, but sometimes take siblings as well, keeping children together.

And I'm very pleased to see that the resources have been directed to address the

backlog that was occurring in the system.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure

it is to inform this House of yet another step forward for our Mistaken Point

World Heritage Site as it continues its upward arc of national and international

prominence. Just days ago, Mr. Speaker, a significant partnership was featured

between our unique, provincially-owned and managed World Heritage Site and the

Royal Ontario Museum.

The

world-renowned ROM, or Royal Ontario Museum, receives close to one million

visitors per year. When complete in 2021, the museum's permanent 10,000-square

foot Dawn of Life gallery will feature four Canadian UNESCO World Heritage

Sites, including a detailed exhibit and mould from Newfoundland and Labrador's

own Mistaken Point.

Mr.

Speaker, our government commits $470,000 each and every year to staffing for

Mistaken Point. This year we also provided $40,000 for cutting edge provincial

research activity, on top of $35,000 a year for operational supports.

recently installed a full-time on-site manager to oversee the work of several

professional natural history interpreters, as well as several local student

placements, to assist in the

interpretation. We also provide supports to the

not-for-profit Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated and their Edge of

Avalon Interpretive Centre. This group, Mr. Speaker, receives $15,000 annually

for operational support funding.

department has also entered into a long-term lease for office and exhibit space

at the centre, and from this not-for-profit group, valued at $26,000 annually,

which goes directly to Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated. More

recently, and at their request, I granted authority to the group to charge an

admission fee to visitors for access to the provincial site, with all revenues

retained by them, to use as they see fit. This is a very unique arrangement and

one that the Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage Incorporated certainly

appreciates, with $40,000 in new revenue made available this year alone.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, due to its great success, there have been calls to increase visitation

to the site. We all recognize that specific commitments were made to UNESCO,

prior to the designation, that would limit the number of visitors on the site

each year.

This is

a very fragile site and this was acknowledged that it must be preserved or the

World Heritage designation could be removed.

preparing the nomination package and the site management plan for review by

UNESCO, some years ago the government of the day committed that the number of

tours and tourists visiting the site will be limited by this reality. Again,

failure to maintain this promise, that was made years ago, could now result in

Mistaken Point losing its World Heritage designation.

So, Mr.

Speaker, while we applaud the ongoing success of promoting Mistaken Point to the

world, and we shall continue to do so, we do so with the greatest of care to

protect this priceless, timeless treasure for us all, for generations to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are

very aware of the tremendous beauty and uniqueness of Mistaken Point World

Heritage Site, and we are certainly pleased to see it recognized in this

partnership between the site and the Royal Ontario Museum.

The

Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage group, and the amazing people of the region,

have worked very hard to preserve and promote this site, but they've also

struggled. It's unfortunate that the group has been forced to hold raffles and

dinners to keep the

interpretation centre, which is the gateway to this

incredible site, operational.

Mr.

Speaker, Mistaken Point received UNESCO designation in 2016, and it is

unfortunate that the government has not seized the opportunity over the past two

years to not only protect the Mistaken Point fossils, but to also actively

promote the site to drive economic development in the region and the province.

The

minister is undoubtedly aware of the significant value that UNESCO sites can

bring to a region, as there are a number on West Coast and in Labrador. Mistaken

Point is the only site in Eastern Newfoundland to be granted UNESCO status, and

is also the only provincially managed UNESCO site in the province.

The

circumstance of inadequate support and management has been an issue –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

– which we have raised many times.

encourage the minister to get informed about what is actually happening at the

site and, if he has not already visited Mistaken Point, he really should.

I also

encourage all residents to take opportunity to explore Mistaken Point, in

Portugal Cove South, our province's newest UNESCO World Heritage Site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. There's no doubt that

Mistaken Point is a very special site that must be shared while being protected.

I congratulate the Mistaken Point and Cape Race Heritage Society on the great

work that it does, and I congratulate them on obtaining a new revenue source.

But I have to point out to the minister the reason they requested permission to

charge admission was that they didn't have enough money to run the centre the

way they knew it needed to be run to handle tourists and to do their part to

protect the site.

suggest the minister fully evaluate how much money the group needs and provide

it directly so there will be no more question about whether this World Heritage

Site is being properly developed and protected, and the people who are doing

this work do not have to worry about the future.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is

for the Minister of TCII, and concerns the mistaken point of a different kind.

On May 7, 2018, the minister stood on the site of future Canopy Growth facility

with a sod-turning shovel.

I ask

the minister: Did you know, at that time, who owned the land that you were

digging?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

quite pleased to be involved with the company, Canopy Growth, in terms of what

they're doing here in St. John's, and that's creating jobs and making

significant investment. They're using all their own capital to do so. In return,

as they increase their sales, and they produce here in this province, every

dollar that's sold, the taxpayer of this province will get at least double that,

and that's quite significant.

I'm also

quite pleased today to see that BeeHigh Vital Elements of Corner Brook has been

able to achieve a production licence for cultivating cannabis, so there is more

activity happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador as we build and grow our

cannabis industry here in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Let the record show that the

minister has chosen to take refuge in the Standing Orders that don't require him

to answer a question.

I ask

the minister: Did the numbered company 80521 NL Ltd. own the land you stood on

at the time of you wielded your shovel?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

the private business dealings of companies and business in the community in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that is between those private businesses. When it

comes to any deal that we do as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, our

deal and our contract is clearly with Canopy Growth Corporation. When it comes

to achieving a production licence, Health Canada will go through the appropriate

checks and balances for security.

What the

Member opposite is insinuating is that there is something untoward, or that

there's something happening between a publicly traded company and the private

business sector out there in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not with the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Can the minister state to the

House whether the numbered company purchased the land only after Canopy had

selected the land as the site of the production facility, and if he does not

know the answer to that question does he think that he should know?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, these are

private business matters between a publicly traded company and another entity

outside of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When it

comes to our agreement with Canopy, they have agreed to set up 145 jobs at a

production facility here in the province and they will only receive a reduced

remittance on eligible cost; so, only things that are deemed eligible. If they

do not own the land, then that is not eligible. Leasing cost is not eligible. If

they do not own their property at the end of the day, then those would not be

eligible costs to be eligible for their investment.

So,

those are the types of things. All the risk here is squarely with the company.

What's come out of the Member opposite, he's raised questions about the people

breaking the law, about the business community breaking the law. If he has some

sort of evidence to state that, then he should make those matters known publicly

and take them to the RCMP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The minister will be well

aware that the province entered a comprehensive business agreement with Canopy

Growth on December 7, 2017.

Schedule A states the land for the facility be

purchased within 90 days of December 7. Canopy did not purchase land but are

leasing it from the numbered company.

I ask

the minister. Did the government formally excuse Canopy Growth from compliance

with the 90-day purchase requirement of the agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly when we entered into the agreement on December 7, 2017, there was

clearly an outlined

schedule and time and milestones that would be met, but we

did receive a request, in writing, in May for the

schedule to be adjusted based

on the fact that in July of 2017 it was anticipated that cannabis would become

legal at that time. Also site development, there was extra excavation, a lot of

granite in particular in the White Hills that would have delayed a bit of the

construction work, some of the permitting that needed to take place with the

city in terms of their land and issuance.

But what

we have done is we have stated from a milestone that their cannabis production

facility would be open in October of 2019, as I said in this House previously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I take it the minister is

confirming that Canopy did indeed violate the 90-day provision of the agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying

is that we have entered into an agreement with Canopy to produce and supply

8,000 kilograms of cannabis on an annual basis. They are supplying us with

cannabis. Our retailers are in far better shape than some of the other retailers

across the country, where places like New Brunswick has had to close down

upwards of half their stores. Quebec had to go to a point where they were only

open three days a week.

One

thing that I have been saying all along is that we are open for business and

that we are working with businesses here in Newfoundland and Labrador that want

to operate here and grow and expand and create jobs and investment here.

I don't

know what the Member opposite would be looking at doing. I guess the Member

opposite would prefer the strategy that was implemented in their ferry

replacement strategy, building them in Romania.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Three answers ago, if that is

how they are going to be styled –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Three answers ago if that is

how they are to be styled, the minister alluded to eligible expenditures defined

in the agreement as he knows. There are types of expenditures therein set out

which would qualify for the $40 million subsidy.

Would

the minister confirm that direct construction costs and direct land acquisition

costs are eligible expenditures?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, in terms of any type of reduced remittance that's available, Canopy Growth

Corporation has agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars and they would be

eligible to receive up to $40 million in reduced remittances only on eligible

cost. So they have to sell, in Newfoundland and Labrador, their product and they

will get revenue from that. But for every dollar that they sell here in this

province, we will get more than that, the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayer,

plus we also get excise tax and the HST.

having a production facility here and the jobs and the benefits are quite

significant, because it does return revenue to the provincial Treasury. That's

something that we'll continue to do, to attract those types of businesses.

Leasing

costs are not eligible, Mr. Speaker. So if somebody doesn't own the land, then

it's not eligible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for confirming something useful in that last answer.

The

agreement between the province and Canopy specifies that eligible expenditures

must be incurred by Canopy and payable to a company that is arm's-length to

Canopy; clause 3.6.

I ask

the minister: How can he ensure compliance with the arm's-length requirement of

the agreement without knowing the identity of the shareholders of the numbered

company?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite keeps bringing up a numbered company, but the contract that we have is

with Canopy Growth Corporation, and that is what the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador is doing with business, and that is who Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador is doing business with: Canopy Growth Corporation.

So what

we do, is we have protections placed in our contract, and I am very pleased of

the diligent work that our staff has done on this, the due diligence, and to

ensure that we are getting a return to our Treasury, the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

All the

risk is with the company, not with the taxpayers of this province. We don't have

to issue a cheque, there is no cash infusion to the company, so therefore if the

company is not able to live up to their agreements, all the risk settles with

them.

What I

can say is that we have an audit process put in place and we have adequate

protections to ensure that all steps are being followed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I ask the minister: Is it not true that Canopy is incurring construction costs,

and is it not true that clause 3.6 requires that for expenditures to be eligible

for government money, they can only be incurred with respect to an arm's-length

corporation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And as I

said, we have an audit process that's put in place to determine exactly which

costs would be eligible. As the building is still under construction and this

process is still taking place, until Health Canada provides them with a

production licence and a sales licence here within the province, then these are

all matters that the Member opposite is asking me to make a determination on

that.

We have

the protections in the contract to ensure that they will only be remunerated for

any eligible cost. What I can say is that the City of St. John's is going to be

getting municipal tax now because of this. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La

Hune wanted us to ensure that the City of St. John's wouldn't get any municipal

tax, that Crown land would be given for a dollar under the EDGE Program and

more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Is the minister telling the

House that he is relying upon auditors to guarantee the arm's-length nature of

the relationship between Canopy and the numbered company and to know who the

shareholders are, but he does not need to know?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth

Corporation is a publicly traded company. It has shareholders. It has people who

are majority shareholders, and people who are minority shareholders. There could

be any number of people that would be buying shares at Canopy Growth Corporation

from day to day to day.

What I

can say is that we have a very clear contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, as

we do with Biome, and as we will with any other production facility that we

would enter into in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government made the decision

that we would be a leader in the cannabis industry, that we would attract those

businesses here to our province. We are doing so, we are creating jobs here, and

we have adequate securities and protections put in place to protect us. And what

we have done is that we've made sure that no tax dollars are being put at risk

here, and all the risk are with those companies.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I put it to the minister that

under this agreement with Canopy he has not only the right, but the duty to

inform himself, as a prudent and responsible steward of public money, as to the

identity of the shareholders of the numbered company.

When

will the minister enforce this agreement and act on his duty to inform the

taxpayer?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, we have no

relationship, the provincial government, with this numbered company, but the

Member opposite continues questioning. So our contract is with Canopy Growth

Corporation, and we will determine the eligible expenses and costs that are

eligible for recoupment. We have auditors and we have the adequate protection

within our contract to do so.

So we

have a good relationship with this company, and we anticipate having a good

relationship with Biome and any other companies that want to set up cannabis

production facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are creating jobs for

our province, and they are creating retail jobs all across Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I don't

know what the Member opposite is in particular wanting to see here. But when it

comes to private business matters, they are done with private business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What preventive measures were

implemented last week prior to the forecasted most intense storm on the province

for our offshore oil production vessels?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we

all know, we did have a rather intense weather event last Thursday, and I'm

pleased to report to this House that everyone was safe and there were no major

incidents of safety occurring offshore.

Members opposite know, and people in the province know, C-NLOPB ensures that

through their operating licence that every single operator is required to have a

safety and environmental protection plan, and it is under that plan that they

would have been prepared for the storm on Thursday, Mr. Speaker.

I can

report that on Thursday of last week all operators offshore did shut in because

of the storm and that I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure there are

more questions to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder

if the minister could advise was there an emergency disconnect or a controlled

disconnect by the operators.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Certainly, I will undertake

to discuss that with C-NLOPB, what type of disconnect it was. The storm was

intense, Mr. Speaker. There are safety and environmental protection plans that

each operator must have and they were exercised under that plan. It was probably

one of the most intense storms we've seen offshore.

We were

constantly – I can tell you – from this government's perspective, I was in

constant contact with C-NLOPB all throughout Thursday and into Friday to ensure

the safety of our workforce and I'm pleased to say that was the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this weather pattern wasn't a surprise. We knew it was coming and it

was, back then, alleged to be one of the most intense storms on the planet. So,

I don't understand why the minister can't say whether it was an emergency

disconnect or a controlled disconnect.

I'll ask

the minister: Were the offshore production vessels ordered to disconnect by the

C-NLOPB prior to the forecasted winds and high seas arriving, which were

forecasted and everybody was aware of it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite would be fully aware that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Offshore Petroleum Board exercises that requirement under the Atlantic Accord

act. There is a chief safety officer. There is a chief conservation officer.

Even in the act, it says the chief safety officer overrides the board. It

overrides the conservation officer as well, Mr. Speaker.

It is

his responsibility to ensure that everything under the safety and environmental

protection plan is enacted and I am sure that he would be on that all of last

week and into, of course, this week with the instance of the oil spill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when the oil spill occurred the seas were too rough to contain the

spill or even to determine how big the spill was.

I ask

the minister. Who issued the order or permitted to allow Husky SeaRose FPSO to

reconnect and to restart production even when the most intense storm on the

planet was ongoing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

again say that the chief conservation officer ensures that each operator has a

safety and environmental protection plan that they must follow. Part of the

investigation of this oil spill will be to determine if protocols were followed

and if they were followed, what do we need to do to ensure this type of an

incident does not occur again.

The

chief conservation officer, the chief safety officer would have been on top of

both of these activities late last week. I can inform the House, as I did the

Member opposite, they were involved all weekend long addressing the concerns

around the oil spill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the minister could advise us: Did C-NLOPB make you aware

that connections by Husky in record high winds and sea conditions were approved?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thursday, I did reach out to C-NLOPB to make sure that we were in a good

position, people were safe offshore, that things were okay looking at the

weather forecast and looking at what was happening.

C-NLOPB

was obviously in constant contact with the operators and ensuring that the

operators were operating, were shut in and operating as safely as possible, Mr.

Speaker. The chief safety officer under the act is responsible for safety. He

was completely involved. The chief conservation officer, of course, is

responsible for environmental protection and they are continuing to work today,

especially in light of the oil spill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder

if the minister could advise: Was the Nalcor CEO or any of the officials with

Nalcor notified or involved with the discussions during this period?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I could

undertake to find out if Nalcor's CEO was involved. I can tell you that the

safety officer was involved with C-NLOPB. They were talking to the operators

throughout this entire process all throughout last week.

As a

matter of fact, everyday, Mr. Speaker, the chief safety officer is in contact

with the offshore in making sure that things are progressing as they must do.

The chief conservation officer has been very much engaged since there has been

an oil spill as of Friday, but I can undertake to determine whether or not

Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas Co. was advised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Terra Nova FPSO did not attempt to reconnect in high seas, yet the SeaRose did.

I ask

the minister: Has the C-NLOPB explained the different approach?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

had that conversation with C-NLOPB to determine under whose direction and

authority the restart would happen. It is under their plans, the safety and

environmental protection plans that these restarts do occur. And I can say that

it will be part of the investigation as to whether or not the right protocols

were followed and whether or not there should be different protocols.

Mr.

Speaker, this government is monitoring two things. First of all, we're

monitoring what's occurred with the oil spill of last Friday; and (b), ensuring

that we are understanding what actions are being taken, and that action is

underway. But we're also monitoring the response by C-NLOPB.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand the monitoring and reviewing and investigating, but these are live

activities that are happening today off our coast.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Have you spoke with the senior managers of the two

companies in regard to why one company took action to reconnect in what was

described as the hardest environment on the planet at the particular time and

why another company did not? What's the C-NLOPB's recommendation? Why did they

allow that to happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

spoken with both operators, and the SeaRose was getting ready to – or was

preparing to recommence operations on Friday following their safety and

environmental protection plan protocols, Mr. Speaker, as I've said to this House

already.

The

question is, in the investigation, whether or not the right protocols were

followed, and whether or not we need to change those protocols. One was ready to

recommence, they did. Terra Nova was not quite ready to commence, and once this

occurred, of course, they have not yet recommenced.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recognize the minister spoke to the protocols that would be in place for any of

the operators.

What

feedback she's gotten back from the C-NLOPB in regard to the disconnection and

restarting production after a harsh weather shutdown. Were they following the

protocols at the time, or is there any clear indication that they infringed on

standard protocols?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure

the investigation that will very much have to incur in this incidence will

occur. And I can assure the Members of this House and I can assure the people of

this province, we will be monitoring the actions of C-NLOPB, the review of this

particular incidence and how we can improve upon.

As I've

said before in this House, the safety and environmental protection are paramount

in our offshore. They are not to be compromised in any way, in any shape, at any

time. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite that we'll be

following through on this investigation to make sure everything that can be done

to avoid this in the future, will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I share her concern that what

should be done will be done, but if protocols were in place they're not

followed. That's a huge concern. When it happens it happens, Mr. Speaker.

In the

C-NLOPB release, they reference next steps: “carefully review Husky Energy's

ongoing response, the company's investigation report when ready and its

Operations Authorization in light of this incident and the one last year

involving the near miss of an iceberg with the SeaRose FPSO.”

I ask

the minister: This is the second serious incident. What's she going to do to

ensure that companies like these are held accountable? The last time there was

no sanction against Husky. So what's she going to do here and now to make sure

that the safety of people offshore are protected?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

said repeatedly, safety and environmental protection is paramount. We have a

joint board, C-NLOPB, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board,

that has, under the Accord Act, the responsibility. They have a chief safety

officer, they have a chief conservation officer. They are the group that

actually approved the operating licence of the operators offshore.

We are

going to make sure that the investigation is thorough, as a government, and I'll

be talking to my colleague, obviously, federally as well on this, making sure

the investigation is thorough. There are many things that can occur under the

review process, but let's make sure first of all that we contain this oil spill

today, and then get to the investigation as to why it occurred and how can we

prevent it in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, there was

reference to 250,000 litres that was dispersed and there's no indication yet, my

understanding, of whether the leak has stopped. There's some reference to sheens

on the water and where that would be.

I ask

the minister: Could she give an update on what oil – believed to this point –

has been released, and what operations are underway to contain it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question;

it's an important one.

Multiple

flyovers happened over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, to see the extent of the spill.

It was farther away from the South White Rose extension, therefore it indicated

– and there is no reason not to believe that the oil spill had been what they

call a batch spill, meaning an instantaneous spill that had stopped.

I can

report that today's flyover showed no sheen, meaning it is either dissipated or

evaporated. That means there was no sheen on the water.

So there

are multiple vessels now in the area checking on wildlife, Mr. Speaker. The ROV,

the remotely operated vehicle has gone, is now proceeding underwater to check

the flow lines and to determine the extent of what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, that's

speculation at this point.

Last

Friday, Husky Energy reported a spill of 250,000 litres at its SeaRose FPSO,

with possibly more leaking as we speak. Details about the cause and full extent

of damage are still not available, and we are forced to rely on information

provided by the company itself.

Australia and Norway know, we know, self-regulation by industry does not work.

Surely, the Premier knows that too.

I ask

the Premier: How much more will it take before he acts to establish an

independent offshore safety and environmental authority?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to stand on this question today because what happened on Friday is a serious

incident. It's the environmental concern, safety. I also want to say that the

minister and department have done a good job over the weekend keeping in touch

with C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

I also want to say that, as

the minister has already mentioned, there is an ROV in place right now to

determine if indeed this leak has stopped. But that is done with an independent

observer on the FPSO, the SeaRose. So there's an independent observer out there.

This is not left to the corporation; this is not left to the company. So this

information will come up, will be reviewed by the independent environmental

officer that is currently on the FPSO.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, last spring a

near-miss iceberg incident on Husky Energy's SeaRose FPSO, and now during the

worst storm since the 1982 Ocean Ranger disaster Husky discovers the largest

spill in our history while attempting to restart pumping in dangerous conditions

that are still so bad we can't even assess the spill. It's just happening now.

These

incidents clearly show that Husky's bottom line has been far more important to

them than worker safety and environmental protection.

I ask

the Premier: Will he begin negotiations with his federal counterparts to create

an independent offshore safety and environmental authority with the power to

ensure that oil companies place environmental and worker safety above profits?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

can tell you now about this government, and indeed the federal government as

well, that safety offshore is a priority. Mr. Speaker, we'll say that the Hebron

production platform is currently producing right now, and they are operating

guidelines, as the minister has just said. So there will an investigation that

will be done into what happened on Friday.

Mr.

Speaker, we understand, and I've said that this is a priority for us, they've

been monitoring this on this weekend, there are independent groups involved as

we speak right now, as is DFO, Environment Canada, Husky themselves and the

Canadian Wildlife Services. They're all involved in monitoring of what happened

there on Friday.

So, I'd

say to the Members opposite, let's get the investigation done. We'll then see

why this happened and when it happened, Mr. Speaker, but first and foremost the

minister and the department and the people at C-NLOPB, their primary concern

today is making sure that safety is in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Since

December 2010, we have been repeatedly calling for an independent offshore

safety authority, similar to agencies found in Norway and Australia. It is the

only recommendation from Justice Robert Wells, Offshore Helicopter Safety

Inquiry which has not yet been implemented.

I ask

the Premier. Why does he continue to listen to the oil industry and not the

experts on safety and environmental protection?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, this is a very

important question and I want the people of the province to understand that

under the Accord Act there is a role for a chief safety officer, whose

recommendations are paramount. They're paramount to the board. They're paramount

to the chief conservation officer, Mr. Speaker.

So, in

effect, we have a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, a

jointly controlled board, federal and provincial government that is controlled

by an independent board of directors and, plus, we have a chief safety officer

within that board whose direction is paramount.

I say to

the Member opposite, in some ways, that is the case already. But I will say

this, what is needed to be done in our offshore will be done to ensure safety

and environmental protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we

believe the C-NLOPB is not the best agency to protect offshore environmental and

workers safety because it's in conflict of interest, it does have regulatory

powers over the industry that it is not fully exercising.

I ask

the Premier: Will he immediately work with his federal counterparts to direct

the C-NLOPB to tighten regulations regarding operations under potentially

dangerous conditions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I think the Member opposite

in her

preamble was talking about the promotion of the industry. I can assure

the people of the province that C-NLOPB is not designed to promote the industry.

They're designed to regulate the industry. I wanted to make sure the people of

the province understood that, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that whatever needs to be done, coming out of this review and investigation,

will be done. Obviously, we're very concerned about this environmental spill,

this oil spill. We are overly concerned I would say about continuing worker

safety, Mr. Speaker. So we will take this investigation very seriously and look

to improve regulation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to bring forward legislation to require every privately held numbered

company operating in the province that does business with provincial government

to disclose the identities of the significant shareholders in that company.

This

motion, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

resolution just read out by my colleague will be the one that will be debated on

Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11(1) I hereby give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Tuesday, November 20.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

That was

an interesting rising of three at the same time – quick on my feet.

Here are

the reasons for this petition: Our licensed child care system is a patchwork of

private, for-profit centres – 70 per cent of all centres – non-profit,

community-based centres and family daycare, plus a small number of education-

and workplace-based centres.

It is

nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province. Affordable, licensed

child care is often in short supply in rural parts of the province. Even in St.

John's there are long wait-lists for quality child care programs.

Child

care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Studies show

that high-quality child care and early childhood education programs result in

better cogitative, language and numeracy skills. They help economically and

disadvantaged children transition to school on the same level as other children.

For

every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50 to

$2.78 – many studies including TD Economics.

Investing in child care creates jobs; $1 million invested in child care would

create 40 jobs, more than in any other sector.

gender-based analysis of the provincial budget would have indicated the need for

a public child care program as a key way to close the wage gap between women and

men in this province.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a

gradual transition to a universal, regulated, and publicly funded and fully

accessible child care and after school care program.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very happy to present this petition on behalf of people who

actually live here in St. John's.

Child

care is one of the most important things that we can do as legislators here in

this House of Assembly, making sure that child care is available for the

children in our province. The need for having a child care publicly regulated, a

fully operative child care program is really pointed out here in St. John's

actually over the past week.

Just

imagine if kindergarten children found out last week that at the end of the

month there's no place for them to go to kindergarten because a lease has run

out and they couldn't go to kindergarten? We'd be incensed. Well, there's no

difference between children needing child care and children who are in our

school system beginning with kindergarten.

Yet,

what happened here in St. John's this week is just an example of how

unsatisfactory our child care system is. The fact that a child care operator has

found out a lease is running out, they don't have a place to operate any more.

This is unacceptable.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response,

please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

certainly a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of government and the significant

contributions that we've made to early childhood development over the last three

years.

Mr.

Speaker, as a matter of fact, I just got back from Happy Valley-Goose Bay on

Friday, where we are working with an organization there. We've just invested

over $900,000 in child care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and these are

announcements we're making across the province. We just recently made an

announcement in Port aux Basques. We are actually making a significant

contribution to child care.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, our government has committed an additional $2

million in the annual funding for the Child Care Subsidy Program. That's for

this year.

Mr.

Speaker, we, as well, are ahead of the target for Newfoundland for our new

projected spaces through the Child Care Capacity Initiative with 425 new spaces

as of April 1, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to that, it's anticipated with the change that we've made

with regard to the net family income threshold from $27,000 to $35,000, that an

additional 100 families will have full subsidy or partial subsidy.

So we're

making a significant investment into early childhood development, as well as

educating our early childhood educators and making them professionals. So we are

significantly making the change in child care within this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, damage to

valuable farmlands continue to occur. This is hampering the province's need to

expand our food security and produce more food locally.

This

damage is mostly due to individuals using ATVs and other motor vehicles.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to strengthen the

Petty Trespass Act and make direct

reference to agricultural properties, increasing fines and power to courts so as

they can seize offending vehicles and assign punitive damages to be awarded to

the property owner.

Mr.

Speaker, I spent the morning, prior to coming in here, driving through the

Goulds speaking to various agricultural producers who continually experience

damage to their properties by such, I guess, uncaring individuals who are

driving ATVs and other recreational vehicles.

What

happens is they look at an open, green field as a great place to try out a new

set of tires, but in doing that they're often destroying the farmer's crop. In

many cases, there's up to 35 to 40 per cent damage on a field and it causes the

farmer to lose that crop because, obviously, that has to be repaired before we

can harvest it.

fortunately, have never had that damage, but I am quite aware of individual

farmers who, not seeing the damage prior to the hay growing, they go in there

with a $100,000 piece of machinery and pick up a rock the size of a small

suitcase. Not only does it damage the machinery, but it puts the harvest in

throes and puts the farmer behind.

We need

to give the courts and peace officers more power. Often they'll show up to

arrest these individuals or press charges and they'll basically have to let them

go because, obviously, a farmer can't put a fence around every field he owns,

and signage quite often gets ripped down.

I think

we need to make the whole province aware that if it's a field, it's agricultural

property. It's their food supply, they got to respect it, and if they don't,

they pay for it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

the Bay d'Espoir Highway and its branch roads, Routes 360, 361, 362, 363, 364

and 365, have become overcome with very dangerous roadside alder growth; and

WHEREAS

the Coast of Bays region is a very busy area with a high volume of industrial

traffic for aquaculture, the fishery and hydroelectricity; and

WHEREAS

the region has a transient workforce that requires workers to travel the highway

at early morning hours and late at night, often in foggy, dangerous weather

conditions with no cell coverage; and

WHEREAS

there have been weekly incidents of moose accidents in the region this year,

some very serious, and daily near misses; and

WHEREAS

all residents are very concerned and worried to drive the highway due to fear of

a moose accident; and

WHEREAS

every effort should and must be made to protect the safety of residents and

reduce unnecessary road hazards for travellers;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

Mr.

Speaker, I have here another four pages of signatures from the community of

Conne River. I've submitted already on behalf of communities from Pool's Cove

and Bay d'Espoir, and I have petitions from every community in the district.

This is

a grave concern for each and every resident of the Coast of Bays region. As well

as each and every business entity, I would say, from Grand Falls and Gander that

service the area and have to come down the Coast of Bays region on a regular

basis in their vehicles to service the area, they too have a grave fear.

In fact,

I would venture to say it's probably going to impact the amount of shopping that

happens in Central Newfoundland from residents of my district this Christmas

because people are terrified of travelling the roads. It has gone beyond the

point of there are alders, and there are alders everywhere in the province,

we'll get to them when we get to it.

The

problem is very, very serious, Mr. Speaker. You're driving along the road, the

road is here, the moose jumps out and he's right on you. You can put your hand

out and touch the alders, and it goes on for kilometres and kilometres and

kilometres.

really need this government to recognize that it's a serious problem, to be

responsible and take preventative action before we have a fatality that is

totally unnecessary and totally avoidable if this government would just provide

the resources that are required to provide safety for the travellers of the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities

Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to

further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizens

of our province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to

mitigate rates, they've provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to do

so.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the potential

options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal

with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to

the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, today I have signatures from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Pouch Cove, Logy

Bay, Paradise and Bay Roberts. We also have people from Calvert, Harbour Breton,

Badger's Quay, Wesleyville, Valleyfield, Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

So, Mr. Speaker, there's certainly a mixture of signatures from all throughout

the province, as has been standard with all of these petitions. And, again, I

will say this is not about blaming the current administration for the situation

that we have. That's why we have the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, to find out exactly

what happened.

I think

a lot of us are very disturbed by some of the things that are coming out. Some

of us are, perhaps, a little more than just disturbed. Some of us are very

angry, including yours truly; but, at the end of the day, we know that there are

going to be significant hit to ratepayers with the cost of electricity, unless

there's something done to prevent that.

While

the government has come out and said that ratepayers are not going to have to

pay for it, taxpayers aren't going to have to pay for it, that all sounds great.

If there was a magic wand and we can all make it all go away, it would be

wonderful, but that's not reality and people want to understand exactly what

government plans to do to help mitigate power rates. That's what they want to

know, and that's what they're calling for in this petition is a detailed plan,

other than: trust us.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 36,

An Act

To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, be now read a

third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

It is

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation

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

Paper. (Bill 36)

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 entitle,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 39, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 39, and that the said

bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a bill,

“An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” carried. (Bill 39)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

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

An Act To

Amend The Housing Corporation Act, Bill 40, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act, Bill 40, and that the

said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,”

carried. (Bill 40)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we

are debating Bill 38,

An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements of Public

Bodies – I move, seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of

Public Bodies.” (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act

will improve government's access to workforce- and compensation-related

information from our agencies, boards and commissions. We've been working with

our ABCs on finding efficiencies and bringing about cost savings; however,

questions have arisen around whether they have the authority to release some of

the information to government and how such information should be treated under

ATIPP.

Mr.

Speaker, this can include situations where the information is considered to be

commercially sensitive or situations were personal information such as

retirement projections, we're asking for that information, and they've had some

concerns with that.

So, the

ATIPPA legislation was never intended to limit government's ability to access

information that is needed to inform sound policy decisions. This new

legislation will help ensure appropriate access to that information.

We've

heard from many of our ABCs that they wish to be open and transparent and to

work with government as we look to find efficiencies. This act ensures that we

have the ability to obtain timely and consistent information that's needed to

inform those decisions. This will help in meeting our commitment through

The Way Forward to achieving a more

efficient public service.

Mr.

Speaker, we are focused on attrition management in government. We've set targets

for our ABCs to achieve the same. This will allow us to work with them in

developing attrition planning through the ABCs as well.

This

legislation ensures access to not only compensation information, but also

information that's crucial for our understanding of circumstances that these

entities face with attrition targets such as retirement forecasting and current

attrition plans.

As the

Minister of Finance, I am responsible for managing the public Treasury and part

of that is having a complete picture of how public funds are used in both core

government as well as our agencies, boards and commissions. This legislation

will help in that regard.

Section

5 lays out information government will be able to access through this

legislation, which includes but is not limited to employment and related

agreements between the public body and its employees; compensation policies,

plans, guidelines, programs and reports relating to the public body; the current

and projected organizational structure and human resource requirements of the

public body; the current and projected retirement eligibility of employees.

This act

will allow government to access this information while maintaining the

confidentiality that this information is from public release. This is important,

Mr. Speaker, because the agencies, boards and commissions were concerned about

this. It does bear repeating, there has to be some level of protection, and that

level of protection will be guaranteed, Mr. Speaker.

Those

concerns that were raised by the ABCs about the information they're sharing,

whether it be commercially sensitive or whether it be about retirement plans of

some of their employees, Mr. Speaker, the legislation here will also ensure that

that information is looked at through the lens of ATIPP and the protection of

privacy when it relates to the release of information to the general public.

So these

changes will allow us access to the – for the purpose of planning and advising

on ways of reducing spending within our agencies, boards and commissions, but

the information will still fall under ATIPPA and anything that is commercially

sensitive would be protected as per ATIPPA.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect that our public bodies will

operate efficiently, as they expect government to operate efficiently. They

expect our public bodies to be accountable for the money they spend, as it is

the taxpayers' money.

Our

government will continue to work collaboratively and respectfully with our

agencies, boards and commissions to make improvements in these areas. This

legislation will enable government to work with public bodies on the

implementation of organizational and operational changes based on a full

understanding of the specific challenges that each organization is met with. The

legislation will strengthen the collective responsibility for government

departments and government entities to address the province's fiscal challenges

and to build an efficient and effective public sector.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to continuing effective dialogue with our agencies,

boards and commissions as we look for efficiencies with our partners, as we are

able to deliver on effective attrition plans, as we're able to lay out plans

working with our agencies, boards and commissions on organizational structures

and so on.

I look

forward to the debate in the House of Assembly and to answering any questions

that Members opposite may have.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister.

Perhaps

in the course of Committee stage – as I've been here, I think I picked up along

the way that something like 60 per cent of our spending, of government spending

is done by non-core government, by the ABCs. Perhaps the minister would be kind

enough to enlighten the House a little bit further with the details of that.

The

minister, I think, is at this point aware that the definition as to which ABCs

are caught up in the reach of the legislation would not catch a body like

Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has four shareholders

and is not a Crown corporation in the sense that it's set up by statute by the

province; it's actually a private corporation, incorporated under the federal

Corporations Act.

The

province does have, however, a 25 per cent shareholding in it. So it is

considered as a Crown corporation. I just raise for consideration of the

government whether an amendment might be needed to catch entities such as

Atlantic Lottery Corporation, which handle large amounts of money as we know,

and an amendment which was directed to catching entities considered to be Crown

corporations might do the job. I haven't thought this all the way through; it's

a drafting matter, but this could be considered by those responsible for

drafting.

section 10, I'd raise a question, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government is

concerned about being sued for anything done under this particular piece of

amending legislation, which basically seeks information. There may be a thought

process behind that, but I, for one, would be interested in knowing why the

concern to provide for no cause of action.

And

lastly, the particular amendment we're looking at here is concerned with

gathering information. I'm all in favour of that. Information is power, as the

minister knows. So there's nothing wrong with gathering information, but of

course it needs to be part of an integrated scheme for how the government is

going to impose fiscal discipline on that enormous sector of spending that

happens outside of core government, and we look forward to hearing more from him

about that.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to speak a few minutes to this bill. It's something that's necessary to put

in place to help us create policy within government, and it's something that

departments find necessary to develop policy, to develop bills like we're

debating here today.

You look

at ABCs, which make up the majority of what government actually is, you have

over 200; 80 per cent are salaries, the Finance Minister tells me – just think

about that. The biggest one by far, you would think, is the four health boards:

Eastern Health, Central Health, Western Health and Labrador Grenfell taking up

most of the salary. If you want to develop any sort of policy, let's say on

health care, you have to go to each one of those health authorities. Right now,

ATIPPA doesn't necessarily allow us to have that information.

So what

this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is actually allows us to clean up how we interact

with our ABCs and how government departments can communicate between them. We

are going to ensure that information provided by agencies, boards and

commissions will continue to be protected by the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 while

still being able to share information – be shared with relevant government

bodies.

We're

confirming the requirement for ABCs to provide the (inaudible) information in a

timely manner; provide the minister with the power to issue directive requiring

ABC to provide the information.

If you

think about the amount of legislation that's been put through this House in the

past three years, Mr. Speaker – we're on Bill 38 right now. I think in the first

session of this General Assembly we saw close to 70; the second session we saw

another 50 or 60 pieces of legislation come through, but often you see a rush to

get legislation in. A lot of that is the departments have to go back, research,

find out information and find proper information so that they put the best bill

forward, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of

times that's hindered by going through ABCs because of this access to

information and whether or not we can legally have access to that. So we're not

getting the most informed information possible.

You

think that the legislation that the House Leader has to deal with – and, right

now, we're looking at an influx of legislation coming in next week. The

departments have a hard time getting the information that they need. Justice has

a hard time then following up and making sure that everything is in order, the

bills are in order. We don't want to come to the floor of the House of Assembly

with a piece of legislation that we're going to have to come back in six months'

time and amend because we put in something wrong.

Mr.

Speaker, this is going to allow us to do a lot more work, better work, and it

helps us to create better policy. If you look at our

Way Forward plan, a number of different action items. When you're

developing policy, though, you want the best information from each area. If

you're doing something in health care, you want to make some major changes in

health care, you want to go speak – it's not just the department but it's the

health boards. The four different health boards need to talk to the departments

to determine what's best for our health care system and based on our old access

to information act, it's not working well for us right now.

Mr.

Speaker, a bit of a technical brief here: Nearly 80 per cent of salary and

benefit costs in the public service are incurred by ABCs, which I already

mentioned. Many ABCs have government structures that empower boards to establish

Right

now, that's where we're seeing some of the challenges is getting those terms,

those conditions. Efforts have been ongoing with our agencies, boards and

commissions to find efficiencies and bring about cost savings. You think what we

were handed with, with the previous PC government, a $2.7 billion deficit and

when you're trying to find savings, 80 per cent of the salaries come from ABCs.

You want

to find as much efficiencies in those departments. Now, if we don't know, we

don't have the information of where to look to find and get that information,

then how can we clean up the mess that the previous PC government left us? I

mean it makes it impossible.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

The Member for Mount Pearl

North over heckling me now, as he had three years. Well, there are not enough

Bounty paper towels I can tell you that, to the Member for Mount Pearl North, in

this province to clean up the mess that you left behind. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, they don't want to own up to anything.

Mr.

Speaker, (inaudible) bringing about those cost savings. So given the magnitude

in spending and salary and benefits, it's important to ensure we have access to

all the relevant information. The question that's arisen: Would our ABCs have

the authority to release information in certain situations, such as commercially

sensitive information or situations where personal information such as

retirement projections?

So when

we get back the savings again, these are two big things. How much are spending

on something? Can we find something more efficient or that would cost less

money? Retirement projections going out – we all know that the Leader of the

Opposition wants to balance the budget, and the only way you balance the budget

with a $2.7 billion deficit is to cut and slash programs: health care,

education, roads and mass layoffs. That's what the Leader of the Opposition

wants to do, blue thunder. That's what he wants to do.

I mean,

this is what he wants to do. We are looking at attrition as a way for cost

savings. We're not doing mass layoffs; that would cripple the economy. So when

the Leader of the Opposition says he wants a balanced budget but he promotes

honest government, he's not being honest with us right now. He should be honest

and let us know that he's going to slash the public service; he's going to cut

across the board – cut our health care, cut education, tear up the Roads Plan. I

can guarantee he's going to tear up the Roads Plan so we are back to what we had

before.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

(Inaudible.) Yes, you can

find it online.

You have

the Member for CBS talking about Route 60, and I think there's some great work

done in that district, Mr. Speaker.

So when

you get to that, very important things – oh, we got the Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour giving me a note. He's liking my speech; he's

telling me I'm doing a good job, Mr. Speaker. But the Opposition doesn't think

so because they don't want to do that. They could have brought something like

this in so you can actually get good information. They didn't want to do it. It

was too much trouble for them. It was too much trouble for them, because they

would actually have to do something to find savings.

They

spent like drunken sailors. They spent and spent and spent $25 billion over 10

years, oil revenues, and not a darn thing to show for it. I mean, Mr. Speaker,

that is ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous when we're here putting bills

forward like this so we can get the best information possible to put public, to

make the best policy for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And you

see a lot of that great policy in The Way

Forward document. I tell you, it's not easy to do a document like

The Way Forward when you have to reach

out to ABCs and they're very hesitant to give you information because they're

afraid to give you things like commercially sensitive information, situations

where personal information such as retirement projections are out there.

I mean,

this is what you need to plan to move forward and we have been serious about

getting our province back on track. The

Way Forward has done an amazing job. We have created jobs. We get the Leader

of the Opposition up asking questions about Canopy Growth every day. Minister,

how many jobs is that creating for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canopy

Growth?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

Two hundred jobs. Biome is

another organization on the –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

Four hundred and sixty total

jobs and he's bringing it up like it's a bad thing.

Revenues

coming back to the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador and they're criticizing

it going back to municipalities, going back to our health care system, going

back to our roads, going back to our education system. I mean, this is what he's

getting up every day in the House of Assembly and asking, like there's some sort

of boogie man hiding behind the corner because of the cannabis history. I think

in 1950s they had a movie out called Reefer Madness ; I think he may have been watching a bit of that too

much on his tour throughout his leadership campaign.

digress, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is getting back to a piece of legislation

that has to develop policy for us to move forward.

The Way Forward is doing that. We work with our departments. We work

with the Department of Transportation and Works to develop a Roads Plan because

we have all the best information. We knew that paving a kilometre here and a

kilometre there and a kilometre here to try to win votes, Mr. Speaker, doesn't

do you well.

What you

seen over the last three years, Mr. Speaker, based on the information that we

had, is that if you get early tenders out, if you plan well in advance – if you

plan well advance –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KING:

We have some hecklers here

because it all comes back to why this piece of legislation is important, Mr.

Speaker, so if you give me the little bit of leniency to talk to that. But what

we did was we did our research, developed policy, which this wants to do. You

can't necessarily do that with ABCs right now. So that's why we're able to get

better value for money.

Now, if

we look at our health care boards and we do the same thing, we get in and look

at our health care boards and find cost savings. We spend 40 per cent of the

provincial budget – roughly 40 per cent of the provincial budget is actually in

our health care system, Mr. Speaker. And right now, because they're a health

care board, that we have difficulty getting the information that we need to move

forward and look for efficiencies.

How can

we work with all four agencies to do things similar through – like an electronic

system, electronic file system where I go into the Bonavista hospital and then,

say, if I get ill today, or if I get ill when I'm on the road driving through

Gander which is Central Health, they would have my records on like that. That's

the type of ATIPPA information that's hurting us from moving forward, things

that can bring us forward, help patients, cut costs, Telehealth, things of that

nature, doing the same thing across all four boards.

So given

the magnitude of the spending on salary benefits, it's important to ensure that

we have access to all relevant information. When the Minister of Finance goes

and negotiates with our valuable and certainly wonderful public servants, that

we get all the proper information to give them a fair deal.

Questions have arisen whether ABCs have authority to release information in

certain situations such as – I just read that. We want to ensure the

government's ability to access to information needed to inform sound policy

decisions; ensure information provided by ABCs is protected by the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;

confirm the requirement for ABCs to provide all applicable information in a

timely manner. That's a big thing: getting your information when you need it.

I'm sure

the Minister of Finance, right now, is working – the budget is probably not

until March or early April, but I'm sure he's getting all his ducks in a row

right now to plan next year's budget. I'm sure he would like to go back to the

ABCs and get all the information he needs to make sound decisions to get us back

to surplus in 2022. Given where we've been, that's no small feat, but the

Minister of Finance has been doing a good job on that. This bill is going to

provide the minister with the power to issue a directive requiring an ABC to

provide information.

So,

what's covered, Mr. Speaker? Relevant information can include: employment and

related agreements between the public body and its employees; compensation

policies, plans, guidelines, programs and reports; the current and projected

organizational structure and human resource requirements; current and projected

retirement eligibility of employees; and any other information the minister

deems necessary under the act.

That is

quite a laundry list of things that this bill allows us to do that we couldn't

do before. I see this is a big step forward; it's something that should've been

done a long time ago. It gives us all the information that we're going to need

moving forward.

I heard

someone say: Now, what's an agency board and director? I use the acronym here,

agency, board and director. If I'm out at Foodland in Bonavista, or talking to

someone at Swyers, or Mifflin's, or whatever: MHA, we hear you say ABCs all the

time. So what does that actually mean?

They're

Crown corporations, like the NLC, Newfoundland and Labrador Power, Nalcor – your

regular Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. They're operational and regulatory

boards; adjudicative bodies; advisory boards; self-regulating

occupation/industry boards; external and internal governmental boards.

Some

other key characteristics of agencies, boards and commissions includes: They're

accountable to government in accordance with the

Transparency and Accountability Act . So by bringing forward this

piece of legislation, that opens up us to be able to get the information that we

need to them, without them being worried that they're breaking the law. A lot of

this is, basically, something that's going to make things roll along a little

easier.

Other

characteristics are established by government, but not a part of a government

department. So they're independent. That's why you'll say the CEO of Nalcor, the

CEO of NLC and NL Power, they have some autonomy from government. They're under

the government structure, but they do have autonomy from government. They make

their own decisions and report back to government, and report back to this hon.

House. And you see that with the Liquor Corporation or ALC, where we partner

with three other provinces and you see a report tabled here every year; same

thing with Nalcor, they just had their fiscal update for first half of the year,

report to the public and report back to government.

Government holds the primary power of appointment, and a lot of this is through

Bill 1, the Independent Appointments Commission, and that's something we didn't

see with the PCs. They stacked all their committees and boards and agencies with

their cronies and friends and whatnot. We heard the Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation tell us a little bit about that last week when

he was pressed on another particular issue, and he tabled that.

I mean,

weeks before the election you had a former Health minister hand an official a

sticky tab with 20 names on it, saying get them jobs. That's the way it was done

under them. Under us, we have Clyde Wells, Shannie Duff, Zita Cobb, two other

people, highly qualified people, to go through this, make the recommendation to

Cabinet, and ultimately the best candidate is chosen. That's what we've done in

the Independent Appointments Commission, and that was a huge step forward.

Now,

other characteristics are: excluded from

Financial Administration Act , but to which government makes at least one

representative appointment; and to which government has assigned or delegated

authority or responsibility, or which otherwise has statutory authority or

responsibility to perform a public function or service.

So, Mr.

Speaker, my time is getting short. I'm sure I could go on for another 20 or 30

minutes because this act is that important.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

No, I want to give the

Opposition some time to respond to my – but I will be supporting this bill, Mr.

Speaker. It's a great piece of legislation. I'd like to thank all the officials

who took the time to put this together. As I mentioned early in my speech, it is

a challenge to get all the information together in a timely manner.

With

that, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to stand in this House as we start our fourth week to debate

legislation, and I was truly entertained by my colleague from the great District

of Bonavista, and some great outlining of where things are. Unfortunately, some

of them are not exactly in tune where we need to be going in the next year here

in the House of Assembly.

But I

might note, too, as we debate Bill 38, while it's only a small change on paper,

I personally think it's a very significant change. Because, as we've already had

the discussion here, and we'll continue to have the discussion, when we're

talking about agencies, boards and commissions, we're talking about a

substantial portion of money of the public coffers that are being used for

services, used for providing supportive mechanisms within our society.

But to

do that, to get the best return on that and to be able to be efficient in what

you do, you need to have information that's relevant to those organizations;

their operational, their salary base, their investment base. All the things that

are relevant to being able to make decisions that are in the best interests of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and getting the best return on our

investments.

already know in the operations of government, the core operations of government,

the Minister of Finance and every other minister, and even the general public

are aware of the financial commitments. Be it salaries, any other particular

perks, the operational structures that are involved, be it allowances, travel

budgets and these type of things, it's only encompassing that we'd have the same

thing for all the agencies, particularly when these agencies are using up to 60

per cent of the public monies that are put forward.

Again,

while it's a very small change, it's very significant because it sets the tone

for three key components as I see it. It sets the tone for the minister and the

government of the day to be able to understand exactly what financial

obligations they've been committed to, and are they in line with all the other

operations of government, or comparable agencies, boards and commissions as part

of that process. Also, knowing if indeed the operations internally are on the

same page as they would be from another operation within government. I mean, you

want to treat everybody equally. You're an employee of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I

understand there are different classifications when it comes to salary bases,

and there are remunerations in similar ways in certain agencies for attracting

certain people, there has to be a realistic understanding from a taxpayer's

point of view and from an operational point of view of what is acceptable. And

you can't make changes. You can't even impose new policies if you don't

understand the baseline of what you're dealing with. The financial obligations,

and whether or not an agency or a board or a commission are actually fulfilling

their responsibilities by utilizing their finances in the best manner to get the

best return on the services they're hoping to provide.

So what

this does here – while it's very simple, I'm just going to read it out so people

would understand and why – I think there was an

interpretation that maybe you

could push in previous legislation for this, but it wasn't explicitly spelled

out. So the minister, while thinking it would be very acceptable, the agencies,

boards and commissions weren't obligated to share that information. So the

minister going to Cabinet, setting budget lines and that, couldn't make an

informed decision as to whether or not they had some leeway to make some

financial cuts that would not be a major hindrance on providing the services but

would be in line with other operational procedures, particularly around salaries

and operations.

“This

Bill would enact the Public Bodies

Reporting Act .” Which is what

already exists and is what this government and previous governments have ran

their finances around, particularly around agencies, boards and commissions.

“The Bill would give the Minister the authority to require a public body to

provide information and documents relating to the public body.”

So there

are a number of things here. It's not only about salaries, but that's a big key

component. That's the one thing that you've seen more from the general public,

but it's also about procurement. It's about the way contracts are let. It's

about standing offers on which companies – and are you getting the best return?

Is there a more equitable way of doing it? Is there a fair way? How do you gauge

if you're getting the best return on paying for a service if you don't have

something to compare it to?

Obviously, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and then Cabinet, and all

of government here in the House of Assembly, would have a better understanding

of what's workable and what is indeed a better return if we knew exactly who was

involved here, what the costings were, and to do that you must have proper

documentation to be able to assess that. Because sometimes it's not always about

the lowest bid or the lowest provider, it's about the return on the service

that's been there, or it's about the individual that's being hired and the

salary based on that, and where does that individual or that group of

individuals fit when it comes to a layered process.

Everybody accepts that not everybody gets paid the same. Even a CEO is a CEO is

a CEO, it's not necessarily the way it is. But trends would dictate and setting

policies and operational structures would be based on, what is the norm out

there? If one agency is paying X number of dollars for a service or for an

individual to lead the organization at a certain salary base, why is another

organization that either has equal responsibilities or lesser paying more?

So you

have to do the examination there, and to do that the first thing you're going to

need is the proper documentation, the understanding, the sharing of the

information. I would hope the boards, agencies and commissions would understand

that they have the same responsibility as any other employee who works in any

other level of government to provide the best service possible and to be

answerable for providing that service.

Some it

is front line, some it's from an administrative point of view, but at the

boards, commissions and agencies level the financial responsibilities are the

same as they would be in any other department. Particularly when we go through

the budget process and Estimates, where every line department is scrutinized,

it's evaluated. There are a multitude of questions. There's information that's

asked for that has to be responded to in a timely fashion.

there's an opportunity then to really dig deep into whether or not the monies

are being spent in the right areas and what would be the expected return on

those. It makes everybody accountable, and that's what this is particularly

about here.

There

are two avenues I see here. It's the accountability and transparency that

everybody would know exactly what's what, but also from a financial operations

and a financial responsibility and a reporting process, that we would know

exactly what boards, agencies and commissions have as their expenditures but,

more importantly, what it's based on. What are the criteria for staffing? What

are the criteria for contracting? What are the criteria for specific types of

procurement? What is the process for internal operations?

This

change gives us that opportunity to get back to what the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador have been saying for the last number of years. We want to talk

about openness and transparency. We also want to talk about financial

responsibility and best return on our investments. People understand that you're

going to have to make certain decisions. Not everything is going to be rosy for

every particular group. There has to be priorities in how you do it.

If a lot

of our monies, particularly a major proportion of it, is being done by boards,

agencies and commissions, who are very capable of doing it, but at times may not

have the restraints or the accountability to the higher level. My argument to

the higher level here is the House of Assembly, because we're accountable to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What's

the best way to do that? Budget debate and when you get into Estimates, because

at that point you can get clarification from all the officials who could clarify

exactly through the minister what it is that monies have been allocated for, how

they're going to be spent, what are their time frames and what are the expected

returns on that type of investment?

When we

don't have the boards in front of us and we don't have the same understanding,

because we don't have the documentation as to what it is they're setting as

their operational levels, their operational bar, for example, then we've got a

problem about how do we secure a proper fiscal movement forward knowing where we

have ability. So you don't cut something in health care in one area because you

have to make a cut, when you know – maybe you have flexibility in something else

that will not have an impact on health care or providing a particular service.

there's an opportunity here for everybody, for government, for the Opposition

here, for boards, agencies and commissions, and for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador to get a better understanding of the best approach to ensure we all

do our part to keep things flowing from a financial point of view.

The

Member for Bonavista had talked about the expenditures and that we're in

financially challenging times right now. And we all admit that. There's nobody

disputing that. But we have to maximize how we minimize the impact on people

here. So there's a maximizing and a minimizing.

maximize the opportunities we have here, and that means having a real, harsh

look at boards, agencies and commissions who are not following, in principle,

the operational thing. Not because they set it up that way, it's just that it

has evolved over decades about responsibilities and accountability when it comes

to particular procedures. So we're given an opportunity here for a senior

government official, the Minister of Finance, to be able to request any or all

information relevant to the operations, relevant to the expenditures. Relevant

to particular changes in the mandate in some of these agencies, boards and

commissions. So what we all have to do, from a collective point of view, is

let's not talk about moneys that have been spent or moneys that should be spent,

let's talk about what are the flexibilities that we have in the existing

expenditures.

already know we are at two points in our juncture here. That our spending is

higher than it should be based on our revenues, but we also have a

responsibility to provide core services. And there's an expectation on everybody

on the services that are being provided. There are no elaborate services that

we're throwing money at. Any level of government I haven't seen – sometimes you

invest money in a particular avenue to see what the return would be. You would

hope it always works out and it's in the best interests of the taxpayers because

the revenues generated or the service provided is in a much better area than it

would have been prior to you making that opportunity.

But, in

some cases, you can only go with the ability you have to invest. You can't

invest what you don't have when you have to provide key things that people

expect. They're base infrastructures and they're key things around health care

and education. So these are things that you need to prioritize, and every

administration prioritizes those. And we talk about infrastructure and we talk

about roadwork and we talk about all the other things that are important. We

talk about our responsibility to seniors and to young people. So you need to be

able to have the balance there as part of that.

But when

you know one of your big expenditures, or your biggest one, is agencies, boards

and commissions that you don't directly have complete control over – and when I

say control, it's not a control about that they have to do everything you tell

them, but control over understanding how they spend their money and is it in the

best manner. And you're not questioning whether or not they have the ability to

do that.

What

this will give now, the Minister of Finance, and their Treasury Board and their

Cabinet, the opportunity to examine whether or not this is in line with where

this administration would want to go, in line where the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador feels that is acceptable and equitable, but it also gives them the

flexibility to say, knowing through documentation and knowing through salary

bases and other expenditures, you have the ability to say: If we are to come up

with a fiscal approach that says we're going to cut 3 per cent of our

expenditures, how can we do that with minimizing the impact?

Boards,

agencies and commissions, because they operate differently, and it may be the

culture, sometimes maybe there is no way of changing what's there, but we've

known in the past that agencies, boards and commissions, salary bases are

normally higher, and in some cases it's necessary. Nobody disputes that. Their

procurement system sometimes is different. Somebody's not arguing that maybe

there isn't an opportunity to have that discussion. And in other processes

there, the way they operate in having a multitude of segments within their own

organization doing the same thing. So, there are efficiencies there that could

be found.

As we

share information, and as the information is provided, before you did it

basically on an agreement that they would supply it. There was no push to do it.

They weren't obligated to do it. It would become something that's second nature

when they got around to doing it. In a lot of cases, by the time a particular

department might get that information, it wasn't either relevant, the time had

passed that would've been an opportunity to do something with it, or even the

understanding of, you know what, if we find a way, knowing how this group

operates, that we can either find a partnership internally, or we don't have to

invest monies in a particular program or service because we're re-inventing the

wheel. Maybe one of our boards, agencies or commissions are better equipped to

be able to provide the services.

So, I

don't want to leave the false illusion here that this is about taking stuff away

from boards, commissions and agencies. It's not about taking away power. It's

not about taking away their operational mechanism. It's about finding a more

fluent way of using the information that now can be gathered to make every part

of government more efficient, but particularly a part of the entity that we –

and I say we collectively, this House of Assembly – didn't have direct control

over sharing that information to make that determination of whether or not they

were going in the right direction, or if there's a new approach, a better

approach, a more inclusive approach, to providing services and saving money for

the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we go

through this, and there are a number of things – we get in Committee, there are

a few questions that we'll have for clarification around the gathering of the

information; the process around how that gets disseminated; to what benefits it

will be used; is there an ability here to have boards, agencies, and commissions

collaborate on certain things.

talked about certain things about central locations for particular things and

collaborate sharing of services so this would give an opportunity to look at –

because when you're talking about the ABCs that we have here, we're talking

about tens of thousands of employees; a very, very vast group who provide a

variety of services in Newfoundland and Labrador. There has to be ways that an

agency, in some cases, that is on the same street as another board or a

commission should be able to provide, or collaborate, or partner on particular

ways that they provide the service for the people. There are ways of doing that.

It could be from an administrative point of view. It could be from a travel

point of view. It could be from the actual bricks and mortar as we look at

things like that.

This

process here, it's not directly – I don't think – about let's go out and say

we're going to start cutting money and say there's going to be a guarantee we're

going to save money. One of the first philosophies I would like to see is that

when we look at exactly how these ABCs operate, we can automatically pick up

five or six efficiencies that could be implemented almost immediately by just

having the proper dialogue because we can say now, I've got the documentation

that this board does this, this commission does this, this agency does this. If

you all came together on administration, on travel, on hiring, on procurement,

on whatever the service may be, there may be ways of doing it.

It's not

going to work everywhere and it's not going to be a perfect system. But once you

start doing that then, as a government and as the House of Assembly, we can get

a better handle on how much money can be better channelled somewhere else, or

how much money can we say we can reach our goals of fiscal responsibility by

providing – either get to a point where there's going to be a balanced budget or

that the debt load is minimal in comparison so that we bring down what our

expenditures every year are and the commitment that we have to pay to the

lenders.

So as we

go through this process here, I'm going to be looking forward to asking the

minister to outline exactly the process that they're going to put in play.

Because it's not as simple as just sending a letter to each one of these boards

and saying can you give us the list of these 10 things that we're looking for,

the salary bases; what scales people are on; how do people move up the list; how

do you do advancement internally; what's the protocol for hiring; what are the

protocols for contracting; is it necessary to have five entities in five

different locations; can something be done differently.

This is

going to be an opportunity. We've had the opportunity to – that the Minister of

Finance will have, is to talk to his colleagues in Cabinet and other line

departments and say: This board has outlined this is what they do, based on the

information that I've collected. How could this be done – if it's a health

authority, for example, or if it's another agency that can support health

authorities; yet, is it connected to another line department for whatever

reason?

We have

a great opportunity here to put everything on an even keel. Because you don't

want to segregate those who work for government in one level and have agencies,

boards and commissions considered differently. They might provide a different

service, they might have a more independent structure from government, but

they're still responsible back to a government department and to this House of

Assembly.

They're

still responsible for the revenues they generate and the expenditures they incur

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have, obviously, an ultimate

responsibility if they're a service provider, and all of them are a service

provider at some level, depending what it is. If it's from the Liquor

Corporation, to if it's one of the other boards or agencies who operate in

conjunction with a line department, depending on what it is they're going to be

offering out there. So everybody has a responsibility to have look at it.

Now,

will some be pleased about it? Because it might mean somewhere down the road

there's a discussion around – responsibilities, everybody's at a certain level.

We have it in government that ADMs and DMs, while there's a variation in that

it's not a dramatic variation, because most have similar responsibilities. Most

go through similar processes of being hired and similar backgrounds,

education-wise and that, but they also have a little bit of a flexibility. Do

boards have five times more of that flexibility and then some? And that's what I

think we need to clean up.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll get an opportunity to speak to this again in Committee.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to stand for a few minutes to say I support this bill, and I will be

supporting this bill.

I know

going back two or three years, this was a big discussions around the government

about the boards, agencies and commissions and why there's no uniformity or

reasons why. We, as the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

would like some answers to it, and, of course, this bill will help out.

Mr.

Speaker, when you get different agencies, boards and commissions that can set

their own standards, set their own policies, set their own wage scale, set their

own tendering process, it becomes a system whereby – and to be fair to some of

the ministers across the way, when they stand up and ask questions, you try to

answer the questions; yet, you can't get the answers on why it's done because

this wasn't in place.

This

will be very beneficial to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It's almost like, and we all know it, that in some boards, agencies

and commissions wages are higher in some areas for the same people who are doing

the work in another board or agency or commission. It's almost like hamstringing

the government themselves by not being accountable; yet, you don't have the

tools to be accountable because you can't get the information you need and you

haven't got the authority to do it.

So I

will support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it was long overdue, and it's great

that the government is bringing it forward.

Even the

structures of government – when a Minister of the Crown is responsible for a

board, agency or commission and he don't have – he or she – control over that

board, agency or commission, yet you're expected to be responsible for what's

happening in that, you should have some kind of idea and you should be able to

make it some kind of uniformity within the department or within government

itself.

So it's

very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that the government can get control,

government can ask questions. The big winners in this is going to be the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you can find efficiencies, you're going to save

money. You're going to increase the service to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and, above all, people will get the answers. So this here itself will

ensure that government will have a bigger say in how the taxpayers' money is

spent.

Mr.

Speaker, just going through it: “the current and projected organizational

structure and human resource requirements of the … body.” That just kind of

highlights that you must bring it forward to the minister on the organizational

structure of the body itself, and then there'd be discussions with it. I know in

some cases when you go to a certain board or agency, the chair of the board or

the CEO of the board says: I don't have to answer to you. They can go off and

set up their own. It almost creates a two-tier system in government where

there's no accountability, or very little to the board that's set up.

The

second one: “the current and projected retirement eligibility of employees.” The

minister will now have the ability to go in and look for that and to look at the

structure of the pay, look at the eligibility for pensions, look at the

eligibility.

I know

I'm going way back, Mr. Speaker. There are one or two boards or agencies that I

remember when we were in Public Accounts that we looked at, and they were

setting their own fee structure. Then I remember on one of them they were

getting a wink and nod from the former minister – I'm going back five or six,

seven years. They were getting a wink and a nod from the Minister of Health

saying, yes, go ahead and do it.

The fee

structures were way out of whack to everybody else in the whole system. They

were setting their own fee structure. They were setting their own pay scale.

What it was, was a wink and a nod from the minister at the time. We all agreed

this should be stopped and we should try to bring things into some kind of unity

within government, and this will do that.

The

other one: “any other information and documents the minister determines

necessary for the purpose of this Act and the regulations.” This act will say

you have to present this to the minister, which should be. I'm a firm believer

that if you're a minister of a certain department, you should be able to have

all the information that's related to your department. You should not be able to

stand in this House – and I don't know, I don't think any minister wants this

anyway. I don't think any minister wants to stand in this House and say, I don't

know because we can't get the information.

Anybody

that I know, that's serving in that role, would stand up and say: I want the

information because I want to be accountable. If my name is on it and if I got

to stand up and justify it, I want to know what's happening and I want to be

able to make decisions about it because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

– they're the ones who got to answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

not somebody who is off on a board, agency or commission who says no, no, no, we

can't give it to you.

I don't

know of any person in that position who don't want the information; who don't

want to sit down and have a dialogue with anybody to help make this policy

better, help save money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, also,

help provide better services.

I think

everybody in this whole House will support this. There are going to be questions

on how it was done, but I don't think there's one person in this House that

would not support this, Mr. Speaker, because it's the right thing to do, and I

know the ministers.

In part

(

b) of the act, which the minister can ask for: “conduct an analysis of the

information and documents provided under paragraph (

a) and any related

information and documents.”

Mr.

Speaker, I know all departments went through a review process. They all went

down and said, okay, let's look at our government departments line by line and

go through it. When government did that, you were amazed with the amount of

funding you found, the amount of streamline departments you could bring in

together to a group of services. This is going to allow government to do it to

all agencies, boards and commissions.

Again, I

know in the budgetary process when you stand up and ask about different

departments, all ministers can give the information. But if you got something

restricted by legislation and you can't get the info