PDF Version

March 12, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 55

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

Our very

special guest that I'd like to introduce to the House of Assembly today is

actually in Happy Valley-Goose Bay today celebrating her 90th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And that is elder Jean Crane,

who is a very dear friend of mine. She recently gave the opening prayer and led

us in some great stories and a drum ceremony at the 36th annual Canadian

Presiding Officers Conference in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

So to

you, Jean Crane, a very happy birthday. She is watching from Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members'

statements, we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Lewisporte -

Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Conception Bay East - Bell Island,

Placentia West - Bellevue, and Windsor Lake.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a well-known human rights advocate and native of Twillingate,

Ms. Kim White.

December 13 during a ceremony at Government House, Kim was presented with the

2018 Human Rights Award. The work that led to this honour has been in breaking

down barriers for persons with disabilities, which Kim has done in both her

professional and volunteer capacities.

Kim's

life's work has been mainly in the non-profit sector and she is the former

executive director of the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities. Kim has used

every available platform – at work and in her personal life – to teach people

Kim's

message is that all existing barriers we face in society have been created and

they can be removed and prevented if people choose to remove and prevent them;

if people choose to change their attitudes, if they choose to work together and

if they truly understand that in doing so, they are choosing to make the world

better for themselves and everyone.

Please

join me in congratulating Ms. Kim White, 2018 Human Rights Award recipient, and

to thank her for her dedicated work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fogo

Island - Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, it's an honour to rise and highlight special people and moments from my

District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

Today, I

would like to bring attention to a young lady who was born to Baxter and Annie

Burry. She was born on Newell's Island and later moved to Greenspond in 1946 to

marry Samuel Woodland, who was fresh home from the war. Together, they raised a

relatively small family of two daughters, three grandkids and three

great-grandkids.

While

raising their children, she volunteered in all activities of the Greenspond

United Church. Sadly, her husband passed away almost 30 year ago. Luckily, she

continued to live at home until well into her 90s. Unfortunately, Aunt Neat fell

and broke her hip. Today, she lives at Bonnew's Lodge senior's home but is lucky

enough to be visited daily by her family and friends. It's always a pleasure to

chat with her and listen to her stories.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in extending belated birthday greetings to

Mrs. Neta Woodland of Greenspond who celebrated her 100th birthday on December

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to recognize a community leader, mentor, volunteer, but most importantly

an exceptional medical professional who retired recently after more than four

decades of dedicated service to the people of this province.

I speak

of Dr. Alexa Laurie who was honoured this past Saturday night with a retirement

banquet on Bell Island. Dr. Laurie graduated London University's medical school

in 1973, and after receiving a speciality in pediatrics she arrived in

Newfoundland and Labrador in 1978 and worked at various health facilities, which

included the Come by Chance Hospital, St. Clare's, the Janeway, the Dr. Walter

Templeman Hospital and others. She has received numerous awards from the medical

association which included the Best Community Teacher award from Memorial

University medical school for her mentoring of medical students.

Alexa

not only excels in the field of medicine, but has an exceptional track record as

a community volunteer and leader, two terms as a town councillor, member of the

ferry users committee, a volunteer in various sports organizations, president

and sponsor of the 2410 Army Cadets, and many others. And just to add a little

extra, an accomplished musician.

Mr.

Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't note the theme of every health

professional who spoke at Saturday night's tribute to Dr. Laurie, this being her

mentoring as a caring, engaging, professional leader who put others ahead of

herself.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking Dr. Laurie for her four

decades of service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

perseverance and overcoming adversity.

At the

age of 13, she lost her mother to cancer. As difficult as this was, Lacey

resolved to focus on getting good grades, which is exactly what she did, placing

on the honour roll each year of her high school career.

Attending the small school of St. Joseph's All Grade meant doing some online

courses, further compounding her struggle because poor weather in her hometown

she wouldn't let this keep her down.

Her

resolve to overcome obstacles laid before her has paid dividends. She was

recently named one of 160 recipients in Canada of the Horatio Alger Scholarship,

valued at $5,000, after having been awarded the Joyce Foundation Bursary, valued

at up to $25,000. She has been pre-accepted into Memorial University, and her

ambition is to become a veterinarian or a dentist. I am confident with her work

ethic and demonstrated success to date, she can achieve or be anything she wants

to be.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Lacey on her recent scholarships

and thank her for being an example to other students, particularly in rural

communities who rise to meet the challenges before them and overcome their

personal struggles to better their lives and communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Windsor Lake.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in

this House to recognize the outstanding work of the MacMorran Community Centre.

recently attended the centre's 3rd annual Dessert Dash fundraiser on February 7,

and I can personally attest to the level of community spirit and dedication that

is alive and well at the centre.

The

MacMorran Community Centre is a non-profit, charitable organization that

provides programs and services to 151 families in subsidized housing in the

neighbourhood. The neighbourhood includes Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunts

Lane, Blackwood Place and McGrath Place East.

The

mandate of the centre is to provide social, recreational, educational, health

and employment services to all residents of the community. The centre has been

an asset to the community for 35 years.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the MacMorran

Community Centre on its longevity, outreach and continued positive impact on the

community they aim to serve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize what was a sombre anniversary in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The crash of Cougar Flight 491 – a tragic event that

continues to resonate with residents of our province, Mr. Speaker; it's hard to

believe that was 10 years ago. It's the raw emotion we feel that serves as a

heart-breaking reminder of the historical dangers associated with working on the

ocean.

Today is

about remembering and it's about reflecting. As we think and mark the 10th

anniversary of Cougar Flight 491, I would like to take this moment to honour the

lives of the 17 individuals who were tragically lost that day at sea, but also

to pay tribute to Robert Decker, sole survivor.

Cougar

Flight 491 has had a profound impact on the families, co-workers and friends of

those we lost. It affected every nook and cranny of our province. Although a

decade has passed, it's hard to not remember where we were upon hearing the news

of the devastating crash. We're all closely knit. Coming together as a community

in a time of sorrow is what we do as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, today, on behalf of all Newfoundland and Labrador, I offer my sincere

condolences to the families, the friends and the co-workers of those that we

lost that day. One such incident is one too many and I assure them that we will

never take for granted the health and safety of those who work offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, tonight there is an annual memorial service for Cougar 491 and will

take place at the Elim Pentecostal Tabernacle on Kenmount Road in St. John's.

The service will begin at 7 p.m. and is open to the public. I encourage all hon.

Members to attend.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Cougar

helicopter terminal at the airport is located in my district, Windsor Lake,

where I attended early this morning to lay a wreath in memory of Cougar Flight

Ten

years ago, we received a stark reminder of the inherent risk that those who work

in the offshore face. The 17 souls that we lost in the tragedy of Flight 491

were merely doing what so many of their colleagues continue to do daily, which

is make a living from the sea and her resources.

Flight

491 went down due to inadequate attention to the maintenance of two titanium

studs. It is vital that we do all that we can to improve the safety of the

offshore industry and ensure that similar events never happen again.

Mr.

Speaker, I take this opportunity to join the Premier in paying tribute to Robert

Decker, as well as to remember the families, friends and co-workers of Matthew

Davis, John Pelley, Corey Eddy, Tim Lanouette, Thomas Anwyll, Peter Breen, Gary

Corbett, Wade Drake, Wade Duggan, Colin Henley, Ken MacRae, Derrick Mullowney,

Burch Nash, Paul Pike, Allison Maher, Keith Escott and Gregory Morris.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for his statement and giving it to us in advance. It's an honour to

join with him and the Leader of the Official Opposition in sending condolences

to the families, friends and co-workers who lost so much just 10 short years

ago. The Premier said we will never take for granted the health and safety of

those who work offshore, and I believe him. I know he means it.

But I

also say to the Premier, the best way to show this commitment is to work with

his federal counterparts to establish a stand-alone safety regulator to help

improve safety conditions in the industry, and to protect the interests of those

relatively few offshore workers who bring so much wealth to our people, and this

is something that the families today are still asking for.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

I wonder

if I might invite all colleagues of this House to rise for a moment of silence.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, on behalf of the

families and friends.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise in this hon. House today to recognize March as Fraud Prevention Month in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

This

campaign, in its 15th year, is promoted throughout Canada to raise awareness of

the dangers of all types of fraud, and to provide information that helps protect

against fraudulent activity.

Recognizing the signs, rejecting suspicious claims and reporting them to the

authorities will help us in fighting fraud. The Consumer Affairs Division of

Service NL provides information and resources to help keep Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians aware of risks, to protect the interests of consumers, and help

them make informed selections in the marketplace.

Mr.

Speaker, in November 2018, we launched a new Consumer Advisories and Alerts

webpage that provides quick access to information on bad business practices,

public advisories, consumer alerts and consumer product recalls. Fraud

Prevention Month is an opportunity to make residents aware of this important

tool and note that the webpage is reviewed and updated regularly to provide

additional information and to ensure consumers have access to the most current

notifications.

encourage anyone who suspects this type of activity or has experienced fraud to

contact our Consumer Affairs Division at

consumeraffairs@gov.nl.ca .

During

Fraud Prevention Month, Service NL will be sharing fraud prevention tips on

awareness of this important issue.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

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 thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, we are also

pleased to recognize March as Fraud Prevention Month. It is important to realize

that no one is immune to fraud, and any of us can become a victim of a scam. It

is critical to educate people regarding the tricks and deception that fraudsters

use to steal money and even identities. The more equipped we are about the

latest scams, the better equipped we will be to protect ourselves.

While it

is important that people have the information to recognize and reject the latest

frauds and scams, it is also very important to report such activities so that

others are made aware and can protect themselves as well. We all can do our part

to spread the word and help educate our families, friends, neighbours and

hopefully prevent anyone else from becoming a victim of fraud.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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 her statement. I was glad to hear

about the Consumer Advisories and Alerts webpage. I'm sure people are finding it

useful, especially if it has timely information about scams and recalls that

affect us locally.

I would

point out to the minister, though, that seniors are a particular target of

fraudsters and are most in need of information. Websites won't be enough for

many of them, so outreach and personal contact will always be necessary.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in

Question Period I asked the Premier eight questions on the expiry of

Hydro-Québec's tax exemption but received no information. Let's try again.

I'm not

asking about the content of any legal opinion. I'm asking only whether the

government has sought a legal opinion specific to the tax exemption, and when

did the government seek it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say this to the Member opposite, and to the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, any revenue opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador

this government will vigorously pursue.

As you

know, there have been a lot of – what I'm going to say – discussions around the

Churchill Falls lease act and around whether or not there is a taxing

opportunity here, and that is something that this government certainly will

consider. It'll certainly – pursuing a lot around the Churchill Falls lease act,

of course, because, of course, there is a declaratory judgment case before the

courts in Quebec right now.

So I

will remind the Member opposite, there is a declaratory judgment case concerning

this act before the courts in Quebec today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I understand by

the minister's answer that they're beginning to consider the question of the

expiry of the tax protection against exported power.

May I

ask: When was she first briefed on the issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

course, there have been a lot of discussions around the Churchill Falls lease

act going back in time, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the Member opposite that I know

there have been repeated discussions within government, both the previous

Progressive Conservative government, and, of course, this Liberal government on

this lease act. And, as he knows, we did pursue a case to the Supreme Court of

Canada concerning Hydro-Québec and the issue around Churchill Falls.

As he

well knows, as the people of the province know, we are in court today in Quebec

concerning the declaratory judgment case around which is this whole change in

the lease that occurred in August of 2016. So, of course, I can tell the Member

opposite, I've been fully briefed on all these matters.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

This issue became a live one

as of the end of August 2016.

May I

ask the minister: Was she engaged by that issue, specifically the expiry of the

tax exemption leading up to that date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I will again say to the

Member opposite and to the people of this province, that this government has

been fully aware of the Churchill Falls lease act and the change in lease as of

August of 2016, Mr. Speaker.

I would

say that most governments and most Opposition leaders, and most Members of this

House of Assembly, are fully aware of the Churchill Falls lease act and its

change of August of 2016. It had some pretty major effects on this province. We

are currently before the courts in Quebec on a declaratory judgment case

surrounding this lease act, and of course we are fully briefed on all those

issues.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Following the tragedy which

occurred in this province 10 years ago today, to which statements made earlier

adverted, an inquiry led by Justice Robert Wells recommended to establish an

independent safety regulator for the offshore industry. This recommendation has

not been implemented.

I would

ask the Premier: What is his position on establishing an independent offshore

safety regulator?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Again,

condolences to the family and friends of those lost in that tragedy. As the

Premier said in his opening remarks, I think we all can remember that moment in

time when we heard of this tragedy. It still hurts in our hearts, Mr. Speaker,

to think that people who were going to work that day never made it and never

made it home.

I will

say to the Member opposite, recommendations that Judge Wells did ask for, 29 of

them have been put in place, Mr. Speaker. There was a recommendation 29(

a) and

29(b) – (

b) was the interim step that asked for a separate and autonomous safety

division, and that has been put in place. We have that today. We have an

individual who is responsible for safety and is autonomous of the board of

directors. That's an interim step.

As we

grow our industry and we have more offshore installations, we'll certainly

consider further developments.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

As the minister adverted to,

as we grow our industry the province's planning around production much further

offshore and in deeper water, safety must be paramount.

I would

ask: What additional safety measures are being explored and considered for the

Bay du Nord Project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say, I ran out of time on my last question. That 29(b), which was the autonomous

safety advisor and autonomous budget, was supported by Judge Wells at the time.

He agreed with recommendation 29(

b) for implementation.

I will

say to the Member opposite, that as we move forward towards Bay du Nord in a

production capacity and as we continue to grow our industry, there is a lot of

exploration that is going to happen over the next number of years. Consideration

will be made as to what extra safety steps – we do have a safety officer, Mr.

Speaker, who is considering the changes that may be required, but let's take

this one step at a time. We have to get to sanction on the Bay du Nord Project

first.

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.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in Committee, Bill 42, Oil and Gas Corporation, the Minister

of Finance indicated there would be a one-time transfer of operational funds

within Nalcor to the new corporation to cover its operations.

I ask

the minister: After year one, where will the sources come for operational

funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I believe what I

said yesterday is that the amount that it costs to operate oil co will be carved

out from Nalcor. That will be on a year-by-year basis, Mr. Speaker.

There's

no difference. It's net zero. What's costing now in Nalcor to operate the Oil

and Gas division is what it will cost through oil co.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said it is net zero that's going to be transferred.

So what

is the actual amount that is being transferred?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't have that number directly before me today, but I'll be more

than happy to get that amount for the Member opposite.

This

decision that's been announced by government to develop an oil and gas company,

Mr. Speaker, is widely supported by industry. We know the potential that's out

there, and the need to focus on this industry 100 per cent by our government is

something that we recognized in order to develop the industry to its fullest

potential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Natural Resources has repeatedly said over the past number of days

that there's no increased cost there; yet, the Minister of Finance is telling us

he doesn't know the number that is being transferred to Nalcor to this new

corporation.

I'll ask

the minister: When will the new corporation be self-sufficient? Obviously,

you're transferring funds in for a period of time. That new corporation at some

point will start generating revenue.

When is

your forecast for that corporation to be self-sufficient?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did

indicate yesterday that once the new corporation starts to receive royalties

from projects such as Bay du Nord or other projects, it will become

self-sufficient.

I don't

have the date circled on the calendar today as to when those royalties will

start coming in, Mr. Speaker, but the project needs to be sanctioned. We've

announced that the project is going ahead. Equinor, the proponent here, has

announced that the project is going ahead and we're projecting revenues

somewhere around the 2024-25 range.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Bull Arm will become a subsidiary of the new Oil and Gas Corporation

based on what we discussed yesterday.

I ask:

What are the amounts of annual funding which will be allocated to this new

subsidiary, and when will Bull Arm again be financially self-sufficient to be

able to operate on its own?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member opposite well knows, as the people of the province have been advised, we

are in a request for proposals stage. There have been several interesting

proposals brought forward to lease or develop the Bull Arm site. As that goes

through its due process, Mr. Speaker, and there are other opportunities for Bull

Arm, of course it will become self-sufficient.

In the

meantime, there is an allocation to ensure operations and maintenance of the

site is maintained. I don't have that figure off the top of my head; it is in

the budgetary process at the moment, but I'd be happy to inform the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for her answer. Again, the indication is there's no new cost here,

but the number that's required to transfer out of Nalcor into the new subsidiary

we don't know, yet they're telling us there's no new cost.

With a

separate subsidiary for the Bull Arm site, and you mentioned the fact of

entertaining proposals, does this mean that a decision to divest of this

important piece of public infrastructure has been made by your government

through putting this piece of infrastructure into a subsidiary?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

No, Mr. Speaker, at all. In

fact, we are moving out from underneath Nalcor and moving this into a

stand-alone division or stand-alone Crown corporation to develop our oil and gas

industry. We've been out there for requests for proposals, we've had a number of

proposals before the board to consider what opportunities there are in Bull Arm

and, I can tell you, I've met with the communities in Bull Arm and they're quite

excited about some of these opportunities, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, no doubt the Bull Arm site provides for our world-class skilled trades

to develop and prosper in the oil and gas sector. With the removal of Bull Arm

from Nalcor and no skilled jobs identified yet with the Equinor project, I ask

the minister: What message are we sending to those very many skilled trades we

have for this sector in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

this government has been sending an incredible message of strength and

opportunity in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. We've been able bring over

the line the Husky Project, which 2,400 people are employed at today in

Argentia. Mr. Speaker, we've been able to announce a framework agreement with

Equinor. We've been able to develop an awful lot on our offshore oil and gas.

We've got $4 billion committed – $4 billion committed in exploration.

So I

think the message that this government has been saying – and even with making

sure that oil and gas is now a stand-alone Crown corporation is saying that the

future is very strong in the offshore oil and gas industry, and therefore the

trades and those that support the trades, it's a promising future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

creating the new corporation, non-renewable energy will be separated from

renewable energies that now exist under the Nalcor structure.

So I ask

the minister: Have you made any decision to stop using non-renewable resources

to help fund investment in renewable energies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as we said

repeatedly, the current existing projects that we have equity in, in offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador, that revenue stream is going to remain within Nalcor.

That will actually help to develop non-renewable resources.

So I can

tell the people of the province today and the Member opposite, in case he didn't

hear yesterday, is that the four projects that we currently have investments in,

that we're currently generating revenue in, that revenue is going to stay within

Nalcor and it may be used to develop more non-renewable or help to defray the

costs of non-renewable resources that we have in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier confirmed what the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue

revealed last week, that government will spend at least $1.5 million to

remediate the former Marystown Shipyard site so it can be sold to Paul Antle.

How can

the minister justify spending taxpayers' money to help a former Liberal

candidate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well

again, it's a situation where facts really matter. The Member opposite quite

clearly made a mistake in naming the individual. This is a purchase that's been

discussed publicly between two private entities. It's Marbase, and one of the

owners of Marbase is Mr. Antle, as he just mentioned, but it is a group of

people that brings considerable knowledge to this industry.

This is

really about supporting the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's about creating jobs on the Burin Peninsula. The $1.5 million that was

mentioned about remediation is work that's in addition to the $7.5 million

that's already been spent on environmental cleanup that has existed in that

shipyard for decades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Premier pointed out yesterday, this deal is between two private entities: Paul

Antle and Kiewit. This is interesting given that these two parties had a deal in

principle in December 2017 that fell through after Mr. Antle determined the site

was not usable in its current form.

Will

this remediation increase the value of this facility for the new owner?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as has been

mentioned already – and I think the politics is definitely at play again because

we have worked with people and he's throwing out names of individuals. If I was

to stand up in this House today and talk about a deal that was done with Leo

Power, they'd be thumping their desks and they'd be looking over at us and

saying you shouldn't do that, but that is exactly what we did with CFI. That is

exactly what we did with Canada Fluorspar.

Mr.

Speaker, this is about jobs for people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

This is about supporting an

industry with aquaculture, Mr. Speaker.

The

environmental liability on the Marystown Shipyard has been with the province,

that liability exists within the province for decades, Mr. Speaker. It was

initially owned by a Crown corporation of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador back in the '60s.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

interesting what a difference a year makes. A year ago it wasn't feasible and

now, all of a sudden, it is when the province steps in to help a well-known

Liberal.

Yesterday, the Premier stated that workers cannot go onto the site until the

lead and asbestos abatement has concluded. So, no owner can go in there and

operate this site without the $400,000 being spent. About another $1.2 million

will also have to be spent on soil removal.

Premier,

when will this remediation work occur and will this be done before the sale?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what the Member

opposite is saying is that the government, who was the government of the day,

the PC government, back in 2009 and 2010 who spent about $2.5 million on

remediation at that site, what he's saying was a mistake. He said that

government should not have done that, based on the comments that he's just

making, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, this is about creating jobs. This is not new risk. This has been around

for decades, Mr. Speaker. All administrations that sat in this House of Assembly

and other assemblies, for decades, have acknowledged this risk – two of which,

in 2002 and another administration in 2009, actually did some cleanup. The

cleanup is not completed, Mr. Speaker. There's still more work to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the Premier I don't need him to speak for me, I can speak for myself.

Mr.

Antle has stated he's shooting to have it closed by March 31. How confident are

you that will happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we're not

negotiating there. We're not at that table. This is a transaction that is

occurring between two private entities, examples where you would be occurring on

many different companies, Mr. Speaker, throughout this province today.

mentioned earlier what makes it interesting, why is it so important today that

this is a potential sale that exists. The reason that is, is because we are

growing as a government, the aquaculture industry in this province, working very

closely with industry.

Mr.

Speaker, this was predicted two years ago when we announced the industry sector

plan on the aquaculture industry. Then, people knew that when we grew this to a

critical mass we would need supply services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

It's interesting, the member

for Placentia - Burin – get his district correct. The Member for Placentia West

- Bellevue, the last year or so, it didn't seem like a private deal to me. He

was pretty public on the announcements. He's been the leader on all these

announcements, now the premier is passing it off as a private deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Something's not right here,

Mr. Speaker.

When the

Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL was asked last fall to provide some

indication of when intake clinics might be set up to collect the medical history

of former shipyard workers and the history of workplace toxic exposures, the

minister said she would inform the House when she had more information.

With the

pending sale of this facility, can the minister provide details concerning the

intake clinic?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, on April 13,

2017, WorkplaceNL received a letter from Patient Injury Law. On June 16, 2017,

we received an email. On June 20, 2017, we responded to Patient Injury Law and

indicated that we need further clarification on their question regarding intake

clinics.

Mr.

Speaker, intake clinics are community halls. WorkplaceNL agrees to form a

medical committee made up of three oncologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Will this intake clinic be set up before the former shipyard is

sold?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think

the Member opposite heard me, but I indicated that intake clinics are in fact

community town halls. According to the act and WorkplaceNL, we have agreed to

form a medical committee consisting of three oncologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, late last week, approximately 80 children and parents were treated by

Eastern Health as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning at Rogers Bussey Arena.

Mr.

Speaker, Dr. Ken LeDez described it as a tsunami, and indicated it could have

been much more serious.

Can the

minister tell this House if the arena had been properly inspected?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can tell

the House that the last inspection in fact was on September 18, and I do have

the report here. Mr. Speaker, there were two directives at that time, both

directives were closed.

Mr.

Speaker, we are aware of the carbon monoxide issue and it was caused by a

Zamboni. The inspectors of Service NL continue to investigate this, and we will

take any information or anything under advisement as we move forward with this

type of inspection.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, given that

arenas have hundreds of people in attendance on any given day with refrigeration

equipment and Zambonis producing dangerous gases, does government require carbon

monoxide detectors in these public buildings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, our

legislation actually does require carbon monoxide detectors, but not in specific

places. The employer determines where in the building the monoxide detector

goes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister.

Can you

inform us as well, Minister, if there is any air quality testing done at these

public buildings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, ventilation

testing is completed also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Given that the employees at the arena were also exposed, has the minister's

department opened up an occupational health and safety investigation yet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the inspection continues. We are continuing to evaluate the

situation, and as the information becomes available, the inspectors will inform

the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health can only treat two patients at a time in their

hyperbaric chamber. During the recent incident four individuals needed

treatment. A St. John's company, Sea-Force Hyperbaric, has indicated that they

have more than 10 times the capacity of Eastern Health to deal with carbon

monoxide poisoning.

Why has

Eastern Health not entered into a service agreement with this company?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to take this opportunity to give a shout out to Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

They did a stellar job. As

always, these things never happen when the building is fully staffed. It's

always later on in the evening or on a weekend. They rose to the occasion. They

put their emergency command centre in place and dealt with the situation whilst

dealing with everything else they have to deal with on a weekend.

The

issue of hyperbaric oxygen is a very infrequent occurrence. We have been in

discussions with Eastern Health about their requirements on a go-forward basis.

Once they have finished their debrief I expect to be able to provide further

information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

government released an RFP for private operators to manage, develop or purchase

Marble Mountain. The deadline for proposals was August 3. Previously, in this

House, the minister had indicated that there were three applicants.

I ask

the minister: Has one been chosen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question. Winter tourism is an important part of Newfoundland and

Labrador's economy, when we look at everything from cross-country skiing to

skating to the assets of Marble Mountain and the work that's being done.

We did

issue an RFP to look at ways to provide further sustainability of that asset to

unlock opportunities for the West Coast, and we did see that we did have

expressions of interest come forward. There were three proponents. They are

being evaluated, and when we are able to report something formally on that, we

certainly will.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you, Minister.

Will you

commit, Minister, to tabling in this House the evaluation criteria which has

been used to review the three applications, as well as the score of each

individual application?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was

saying about Marble Mountain and how important that is for an asset on the West

Coast when it comes to skiing and the investments that can happen, what we've

done is we've taken steps where we're able to transfer land to make the base

development a piece where further investment can happen at Marble Mountain.

That's led people to put forward submissions. They are being reviewed, they are

being analyzed. There is a due diligence process that would take place, and

that's ongoing.

So until

that is complete, Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to make further comment on that

matter.

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.

On the

10th anniversary of the Cougar helicopter crash, families are calling for an

independent offshore safety agency as recommended by the Wells report. On

February 28, the Premier and his minister flew to Ottawa to ask for more lenient

environmental assessments for the oil industry.

I ask

the Premier: Why is he not making an equally strong case to Ottawa for a safety

authority independent of oil companies' interests?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Member opposite, as well as everyone in this province, that the

Premier and I surely went to Ottawa not for lenient regulatory process for

offshore. That is absolutely not correct.

What we

did go to Ottawa to discuss was issues around C-69, a bill that looks at impact

assessment. We wanted to make sure, for example, the province is consulted if

there are any changes.

There is

a

section of the act that we felt needed to be changed, for example, that it was

only unilaterally around what the federal minister would have to say. So we

wanted to make sure that we had Newfoundland and Labrador in there. We wanted to

make sure that well-known, established projects like exploratory drilling were

no longer on the project list.

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.

encourage the minister to realize that the time now is for a permanent

authority, not an interim authority. It'll be too late once we're in that deep

water doing the exploration she's talking about.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources said Nalcor will siphon

money from Nalcor to the new Oil and Gas Corporation until it generates revenue,

and also that government is counting on Nalcor's equity assets to mitigate

electricity rates.

So, I

ask the minister: How can she be so sure if there will be enough money in

Nalcor's assets in 2021 to cover both rate mitigation and the oil company's

operations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to say this again, that there is net zero – there is no net change for the

development of the oil company that we're talking about, the separate Crown

corporation. It's currently funded by Nalcor as part of the ongoing operations.

Because we have equity investments, because we have interest in offshore, it's

currently funded that way. When it comes out, it will be funded the same way,

Mr. Speaker. So, no net change in the costing to this government.

As I did

indicate to the Member opposite, there is revenue being generated by our

investments in offshore NL, by our investments in these four projects, and that

money may be able to be used for other things such as rate management.

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.

I hope

at some point we're going to get some figures given to us here on this floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

The minister says the new

corporation will return significant value to the people and economy of the

province; however, it seems clear there will be no new revenue to the

corporation before 2025 when Bay du Nord starts production.

I ask

the minister: What will be the significant value of this corporation to the

lives of the people of the province before 2025?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

again reiterate why I think there are five good reasons to make this a

stand-alone Crown corporation – one of which, of course, is the development of

Advance 2030 . Mr. Speaker, 150

stakeholders in this government has developed a plan to really help drive and

encourage the development of our offshore oil and gas industries. It's a great

opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador, so we've put in place an expanded

mandate for this Crown corporation to assist with driving the opportunities.

This new corporation, again, will be looking at exploration, seismic and how do

we ensure that we're getting maximum benefit of our offshore oil resources.

We're

also having some expanded mandate. There's no extra cost. We're actually making

sure that Nalcor is focused solely on the utility business.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi for a quick question, please.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Finance – he mentioned that we've lost $70 million on royalties

this fiscal year. I'm asking him: Have we met the oil price projected for this

year or is Nalcor losing money in equity assets as well?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board for a quick response, please.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The $70

million is not lost revenue, it's deferred. The oil is still in the ground –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will

receive that revenue at some point. We obviously would have preferred to have

seen it in this year's budget but the oil price that we budgeted was $63 a year;

we are currently above $70 on an annualized basis or above what we projected

budget-wise.

Production, the value of a barrel of oil, it all plays into the final figure,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I

rise on a petition concerning the hospital in Corner Brook.

WHEREAS

the successful proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to

be announced this spring and construction anticipated to begin this fall and, as

this is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and there are

experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows: We

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that are

awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and

labourers, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own

area, support the local economy and be able to return home to their families

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I stand here and I just wanted to bring it forward to the

government that this is a big issue. I was at a couple of firemen's balls last

week, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of the people there missed out on the opportunity

last year that we thought was going to be work for the local people, but it

ended up not being work for the local people.

There

was a deal struck with the company –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Some order, please, I'm

having difficulty hearing the identified Member.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, there was a deal

struck so that they could hire local people at no extra cost. The ironworkers

themselves were putting in $100,000 to make sure there was no loss to the

taxpayers and no loss to the company. So that's real commitment.

I hear

the Minister of Transportation and Works and I'm encouraged by his comments that

they are meeting with all the trade unions in the province, Newfoundland and

Labrador Construction Association. That's very important.

So I'm

glad that we're all going to work together to ensure this. I can say now, Mr.

Speaker, if you need any help working with any of the unions and the local

people in Corner Brook, I'm offering my services because I know a lot of these

families. I know a lot of these people. I know a lot of the kids – a lot of the

kids I coach in basketball.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm encouraging the government to work with the companies themselves,

to work with the companies to see what we can do to hire local people. I just

want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, this can be done with no extra cost to

the taxpayers. I know the Construction Association and unions are onside. I know

a lot of the companies are going to be working with it, and I know the Member

for Corner Brook has heard it before and I know he's in agreement with this.

Again,

the Minister of Transportation and Works has taken a proactive role in this and

I thank him for that. I look forward to having a great hospital in Corner Brook,

radiation unit, the next available PET scanner, or the next available technology

that's available there and it would be so much nicer to have it built by local

workers so people could see what they're going to be building from home with

their families.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. Just this past Saturday evening, I had the

pleasure to attend the closing banquet of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Construction Association. That's an association that represents 700-member firms

from around the province. This is the same group that last year organized with

us a business-to-business session in Corner Brook, where we took the two

proponents who were selected to bid on the new acute-care facility in Corner

Brook on the West Coast, match them up, and give them an opportunity to present

their wares, their cases to the companies that are going to be building this new

hospital – one which is long overdue.

Mr.

Speaker, also last week I met with Trades NL and we discussed things like CBAs,

and that's Community Benefits Agreements. We want to explore these opportunities

because I can assure you we want to make sure that every single opportunity

that's available to Newfoundland and Labrador companies and Newfoundland and

Labrador workers is afforded to them.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering from

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,

whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,

not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

THEREFORE we, the petitioners, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to instate legislation which includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate

ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term care and all other applicable

regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease

and other cognitive debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate

safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required

care. This law would include the creation of a specific job position in these

facilities for monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of

patients.

This

petition, Mr. Speaker, has been signed by many people, I see mainly from the St.

John's and CBS area, in response to the call by the group that has put out the

petition, the advocates for senior citizens' rights. They are advocating for

changes in the long-term care system to improve the current inadequate situation

with personal care, health care and safety in those facilities.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm finding it difficult to speak

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, that makes two of us.

Could I

ask for some co-operation, please, during the reading of these petitions?

Thank

you.

Please

proceed.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

respect of the concern of people who are sending this petition to us here on the

floor, I think we need to listen to what's being said and I appreciate the

intervention.

I – as

sure as other MHAs on this floor – am constantly receiving phone calls from

families with parents, in particular, who are going through what's being

described in this petition. I know it's not everybody. I know it's not happening

all the time everywhere, but the very fact it's happening at all is something we

should not want to have in our province. It's something we should be ashamed of.

I really

call upon this House, I call upon the minister to listen to the experience of

what's going on in the province right now for people who are suffering in the

way that's been described in the petition.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the 15 per cent

retail sales tax on insurance premiums that the provincial government imposed in

2016 has significantly increased the cost of insurance.

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

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on

insurance premiums.

Mr.

Speaker, I know that this current government does have a plan to gradually

minimally reduce the cost of sales tax on insurance and it's nothing more than

an insult to the people who have to bear the initial 15 per cent cost on top of

already the highest insurance premiums in Atlantic Canada.

As I've

said many times, over the past three years, largely due to the increased taxes,

fines and fees and general cost of living in this province, people do not have

the money to pay. Their nest egg is gone; their rainy day fund is gone. People

are losing their jobs. Insurance is basically a cost of living; a cost of going

to work, a cost of going to the hospital, a cost of going to the – it's

necessary. So why are we, as legislators, continuing to tax our people on

something that's necessary to perform and live in this province?

We're

calling on to remove 100 per cent of the insurance tax in this upcoming budget.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board for a response, please.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are a couple of comments I'd like to make. I'd like to see the tax on automobile

insurance gone as well, but if you looked at the policy of the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

If you looked at the policy

of the PC Party, they would –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Gentlemen, you asked a question in a petition, we have a response. I'd look for

some co-operation.

Thank

you.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

calming down the PC Party.

They did

ask a question. I am trying to provide an answer to them.

Their

party's policy is they would cut spending to what provincial revenues are.

That's over $600 million this year. In 2015, the last year they were in office,

it would've been $2.2 million, two-thirds of health care spending. It's almost

three times Education spending. On top of that, they want to eliminate the tax

on insurance.

They

stand every day asking for more money to be spent in petitions, sometimes in

Question Period. I'd like to know where they're getting all of the money;

probably out of the satchel from their uniforms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Finance remembers his days better as a Tory than he does as a

Liberal. It seems like he got a better knowledge of those days.

Caps on

thresholds in automobile insurance would leave many people without adequate

compensation when they are injured.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to adopt a policy against the imposition of caps on

thresholds in automobile insurance.

Mr.

Speaker, my colleague just presented one on the insurance tax, which we all know

cripples the economy, but this one here on the caps has a more detrimental

effect on people that are injured –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Please

proceed.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you.

A more

detrimental impact on people who are injured in a vehicle accident through no

fault of their own.

There's

been lots of debate. As recently as today, I was reading letters coming from

both sides, and we've heard presentations from both sides. I've always been

fixed on the fact of what's the benefit? If the rates are not going to decrease,

why are we going to impose caps? There has to be some trade-off. It's like a

negotiation, you can't give up everything and get nothing in return.

So if

you're going to give up caps to protect injured people through no fault of their

own – motor vehicle accident or what have you – well, you're going to have to

give some reward and some payoff, and that would be reduced rates. We're not

seeing that. Nobody from the industry and no one's telling us that's the way it

is.

I know

consultations have happened. I know government has been in receipt of that

feedback, and we'll continue to lobby on their behalf because the general public

need to be protected. They also have to be protected both ways, in their

pocketbook and in the event they get injured. Right now, they're going to pay

the same; yet, if these caps come in they'll be penalized because they'll be

getting a very little amount of money for an injury that's going to last them

the rest of their lives.

So we do

call upon government to give this strong consideration because we believe there

has to be a fair and balanced trade off, and right now we're not seeing that.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live

inside the Eastern School District's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do not

qualify for busing and a policy cannot override the safety of our children;

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

of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6 policy for all elementary

schools in the province and in junior and senior highs where safety is a primary

concern.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioner will every pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had this debate and this discussion here in the House of

Assembly, but we've definitely had it in the domain of public interest.

Organizations on Facebook, people have Skyped, people have had public meetings.

School councils have had discussions within their regions, and the main

underlining thing is about safety.

realize there's nobody in this House of Assembly who doesn't want to find the

safest way to transport our children. We know there's a cost associated to every

time we change a policy in government. We understand and we accept that, but in

some cases we got to do due diligence and find the most equitable intensive

process to ensure that safety is our primary objective.

I've

talked to a number of administrators who've said – because not all schools do

the courtesy busing. Not all schools or parents have applied for courtesy stops.

So there are a number of schools, when we look at the numbers and we've debated

back and forth of what the real number would be for implementing such a process

of eliminating the 1.6 kilometre policy, that not all schools implement the

courtesy busing.

I've

talked to two schools only recently who said if that was gone, we have enough

empty seats on our buses now that we could do it without any hassle. There

wouldn't be an administrative process to the whole – interceding with to make

sure safety is there.

What is

also happening in some other areas, rural areas, the seats are available. On a

given day, every time we reassess it there are less and less children in some

areas, unfortunately, because of the aging population, because of out-migration.

In growth areas, particularly, where still the infrastructure is not there to be

conducive for kids to travel in a safe manner, we need to find a mechanism that

works.

It's a

minimal investment for the long-term safety, a better quality of education and a

stressor off the people who are engaged here. It's a mental health issue; it's a

physical health issue.

Mr.

Speaker, for a small investment, we think – and when I say we, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, think this is the best thing to do to keep our

children safe and improve our education system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day are called.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to debate resolution and Bill 55 regarding Interim

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

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

Whole to continue the bill on Interim Supply.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are now considering the related resolution and Bill

55,

An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain

Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2020 And

For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

“That is it expedient to introduce a measure to provide

for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 2020 the sum of $2,864,878,600.”

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

PARSLEY:

Good afternoon, it's a pleasure to stand in this hon. House today and represent

the great District of Harbour Main. We can go to my district today and talk

about the great things, but something I want to talk about, last Friday

afternoon on International Women's Day I had the honour of attending an event in

All Hallows Parish in North River. We had 180-plus women in a room and the

electricity in that room that day was amazing.

We went there to celebrate a day of peace, a day of

women and we actually left the politics out of it because it was no place for

politics. It was a day to celebrate what we have achieved.

Before I go on, there was a lady in that room that day

that we have to throw out a birthday wish. Mary Flynn of Clarke's Beach

celebrates her 101st birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

PARSLEY:

spoke to her niece earlier. We were going to have a little celebration, but no,

she's too busy. She had cards last night and she's doing cards again tonight.

So, at 101 years of age, we had a lot to celebrate, and during that time, during

some of the speeches, we went back 101 years ago and thought about what our

mothers, as strong women, went through, to keep our homes going while the father

was out doing the breadwinning and, let me tell you, it must not have been an

easy task.

Fathers and husbands went away to work, mothers were

left with the children, and they had to do it all, but do you know what? From

what I heard in that room that day, what an awesome thing, everybody has a

mother or grandmother who's gone through this and to have survived it and

brought the wonderful people that we have in this world today, the people who

can stand up here today with freedom and be able to talk

about it.

looked at it. We had a guest speaker there; we had many people. But at the end

of the day, it was a day to celebrate, and we celebrated wonderful things. I

think sometimes we let things get caught up in politics and what went wrong and

what didn't go wrong. I tell you what went good that day, everybody had

something nice to say and everybody celebrated each other's vision and a vision

for tomorrow.

It's not

like our young mothers today have it any easier. Years ago, everybody had

chores, but today young mothers are getting up, they're at hockey rinks, they're

at soccer arenas, everybody has something to do. So it's probably more stressful

today on the young women than it was years ago, because years ago it was just an

going on we kind of have to be in tune with it all.

Like I

said, when you put 160-plus women in a room and there's a rose there for

everyone and everybody is enjoying a luncheon, enjoying each other going from

table to table just to say hello, and what an honour to think of the freedom

that we have. And to think of the things that our government is doing right now

to make things better, make things better not only for our mothers, our fathers,

our children, our children who are going to be the breadwinners one day and to

grow up in this world.

It's not

a time limit, but we should feel honoured and privileged. And I will again – I

never got the chance to wish our colleagues here, our females in the House, on

women's international day. That's why I was so proud to be in that event and to

be able to speak and say a few words. Let me tell you, when I looked at Ms. Mary

Flynn at 101, it was just breathtaking to think, here she is, 101 years old and

to be able to sit there with a group at a table. We had young people from all

walks of life. And you know what? Everybody had the same thing to say. It's

freedom, it's everything.

And

another person that I should mention that day was Mayor Joanne Morrissey, the

mayor of North River, who went out of her way to organize this event, and all

proceeds when to O'Shaughnessy House for women and children.

AN HON. MEMBER:

There is something burning.

There is a burning smell.

MS. PARSLEY:

I'm not on fire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. PARSLEY:

I never get fired up, as you

might notice in this House, so I'm certainly not the cause of whatever we smell

burning here today. Hopefully, it's all okay.

But

anyway, I was speaking about Mayor Joanne Morrissey, the mayor of North River,

who put everything into this event and gathered all these women in the room to

celebrate – sorry, I lost my train of thought on the burning issue.

We're

talking about the funds raised for O'Shaughnessy House that afternoon. I think

it was a $25-admission fee and a little gift for mothers and children. But let

me tell you, hats do go off to strong people like our mayors. We have Mayor

Betty Moore over here in Clarke's Beach too.

I was a

former mayor, Mayor Betty Parsley. We had Betty Fitzgerald. There are lots of

Bettys (inaudible) and let me tell you they are doing awesome jobs in our small

towns. It takes people like that to take the challenge, to go out there, run our

towns and to do what they have to do.

Like I

said, O'Shaughnessy House was the reward that day. We had the Presentation

Sisters who donated their convent for the proceeds for a place for people to be.

I will

tell you one thing, it was quite an honour. I'll revisit Ms. Mary Flynn later on

today to help her celebrate her birthday but, at the moment, it was great. We

had people from all over the district, from Southern Bay, Western, Carbonear,

Harbour Grace and let me tell you it was a great time.

But

getting back to the district, Holyrood just finished off their celebrations.

They got a 50th anniversary for Come Home Year, the Town of Clarke's Beach is

going on – most of the people in the district – the tourism in Town of Cupids is

doing really, really well. Hopefully, by the time the spring comes now, we'll be

at all the events and make sure that things are covered well.

I'm

sorry; I'm a little bit distracted about the burning that happened here while I

was trying to talk. But, at the end of the day, hats do go off to Mayor Joanne

Morrissey over in North River and her staff for organizing that day. It's events

like that that we all need to attend and be a part of, and if we can do that as

civilized people that's all a part of living.

I'm

going to sit now and take my seat. I'm not going to take my full 10 minutes, the

burning desire is making me sit down.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's

indeed an honour to stand as we talk about the great things that are happening

in particular districts, but are particularly happening around certain areas.

And, just noted by the Member for Harbour Main, the great things that were

happening there and her dialogue between women on a leadership role and how

important that is in our society.

Madam

Chair, I could get into a point where we could criticize government or we could

criticize policies and that, but my opportunity to speak to Address in Reply is

not going to be about that. It's going to be about how we move this province

forward, and how it's important for all of us to be on the same page when we

look at what are the priorities that we're trying to do.

Every

day we come in here and we talk about issues that are important to us. We do it

sometimes through petitions, and it makes no difference which side of the House

you're on. There's no doubt when we present petitions on this side of the House

in the Opposition, they're relevant to the same issues that people in the

government side face. Unfortunately, Members in the government side probably

don't get the opportunity to get up and speak to them and support what we're

putting forward. But I know in discussions, there are a lot of similarities in

our own district. There are a lot of similarities in our priorities, a lot of

similarities in how we'd want to move things forward in the best interests.

I just

want to go back – I'll note a couple of them over the next eight minutes or so,

but the one that I just presented in the petition, the 1.6-busing policy. Again,

this is not an attack on any administration; it's not an attack. It's about

realizing that it's time that we modernize what we do and how we operate. In

this case, it's about looking at the protection of our children, modernizing a

policy that's outdated, and it was there for a reason at the time. It was a

different society, it was a different mentality, we had a different

understanding of what was accepted, there were different challenges than they

are right now in Newfoundland and Labrador and in our communities as such.

So, we

need to say let's modernize it. I know we've done small things along the way to

alleviate the impacts it's had on families around courtesy busing, around

courtesy stops, and they've had an impact and have been a benefit to a small

number of people who had to avail of it, and people are no doubt happy that

they've managed to do it. But I talk to people on both sides of it who managed

to get a seat but feel bad that their neighbour didn't get one, or because one

of their children are a bit older, couldn't avail of it. So the stresses on the

family are still equally there.

I've

talked to the other people who've said, you know what, we've come this far; why

can't we see the light at the end of the tunnel and go to where we need to go?

Is there a cost associated? Sure there is. I mean we have $8-billion budgets in

Newfoundland and Labrador and we have to make priority decisions along the way.

No doubt every government does it, every administration does it, every

department does it, in prioritizing exactly what is in the best interests, what

is the best return on their investment and what has to be done in a primary time

in the best interests of safety for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Safety

comes in many forms. It could be in how many inspectors we get for making sure

structural things are done properly in the construction industry. It could be

around what we produce in the way of manufacturing the products there from a

farming point of view or a mining point of view and making sure that is in the

best interest of safety for people.

It could

be in our health care system in ensuring that our professionals and the

equipment we have and the monies we invest in that gives us the best return to

ensure people are safe in our society. And in our education system, on a daily

basis, we look at that, from the structure of the buildings that our students go

into, to the parking lots, to the lighting and all that but, particularly, when

we talk about the safety of an individual, particularly some of our more

vulnerable, younger children and the impact that has.

So it's

an easy elimination when we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in education

system, and rightfully so, and could spend hundreds of millions of dollars more,

if we had it to be able to do it, to ensure we get a quality of education. Part

of the quality of education is ensuing that our children make it to school

safely, that the stresses and the mental health on families, the burdens are

eliminated, and that we minimize any risk of any exposure to anything that's

negative to a young person is eliminated.

The best

way to do that is in an environment where they're on a secure bus that has all

the safeguards in the world from a traffic point of view, that has qualified,

certified individuals who know what they're doing in handling the children on

the bus. Children are around their friends, so there's an opportunity for them

people to also assess if there's a particular issue that a young kid on a bus

may have and that could be from an allergy and all of a sudden they come in

contact with something that causes a health risk.

So we

have an ability to do that, but it does come at a cost. It's been a reality.

We've been spending, you know, $60 million to $80 million over the last 25 years

on busing, based on the principle of getting people to school, a proportion of

people to school. Those who live in the 1.6-kilometre range have to do without

that and have to go at a higher risk.

When

we're picking and choosing the risk of children we have, that's not the right.

That's not where you weigh off who's more important based on a distance. So we

need to make some decisions here and sometimes we have to carve out either one

of two things: We have to reassess the investment we have to make sure we

address the primary safety issues and then the resource issue; or we have to

say, you know what, unfortunately there are other programs or services that are

important – don't get me wrong – but not as important as providing a safety

mechanism to ensure quality education.

They're

decisions that have to be made, or we become more efficient in what we do. We

sit down with all the parties involved and find a solution. I remember a number

of years ago as a civil servant in 2004 budget cuts and I was responsible for 45

sites. There was a decision made by Cabinet of the day that I was to cut seven

sites to meet the financial targets of the reductions by every department in

every line area of government and every division.

remember getting leeway, actually at one point getting to talk to members of the

premier's office and saying if I can come up with a mechanism, or the people

that I work with, that would achieve the same goal financially, but would still

sustain the services that we have, would that be acceptable.

There

was a bit of debate and there was about a week – I guess they talked in Cabinet

and maybe Treasury Board spoke about it and maybe they looked at the policy

implications, but it was outside entities that we were supporting and funding.

And the decision was if I could find a way, or in working with the groups I had,

to ensure that the quality in all of these sites wasn't diminished to a point

where it wasn't effective for what it was set up to do, and not all these sites

could still survive in the short term and have a long-term plan to be able to

provide the same services, then they would entertain it.

We sat

with people from Nain, Labrador, and I remember from Sheshatshiu, to Port aux

Basques, and we had discussions around the issues from a financial point of

view. And collaboratively, we worked together. You could see 40 people in a room

come up with ideas that one would do something that would support 10 other

sites, and that would cut their costing. Ten sites in the urban areas would do

things to help the rural sites, and vice versa. We found a very effective way to

do it. We said how can we also collaborate and partner with other existing

programs within government to still get the same supports and be able to meet

our financial obligations.

So when

you look at if every group had to do an audit, and you're doing 40 audits, and

you go to 40 different auditing companies or accountants, you're only going to

get a certain price. But if we put out an RFP for one company who'll do 40, now

we've dramatically dropped our costing by 35 per cent. That gets equated based

on the size of each of the sites. So there was a way of doing that –

training was another way; supportive services was another way; buying in bulk.

The solutions are there when people want to look at the end

result. The end result is providing the same service and finding a way to do

that. What we did find when we met with the municipalities, and we've met with

the Federation of Municipalities and said, here's our challenge. Now, we know

we're only in 40 of your communities, but those 40 communities – or 40 sites

probably take in 100 communities. They went out of their way to get their base

community councils to support us.

Some of them gave free rent. Some provided snow clearing

for a building that was there, to offset certain costs. But, at the end, of the

day the primary objective here was to provide the same quality of service.

Because that's what people expected, but more importantly, it's what people

needed. These sites were developed for a purpose, the same way we have our

education system. Our education system is built on the premise that we give a

safe environment to prepare our young people for the next level of their

education objectives. And we prepare them to go out into post-secondary of some

level or out into the working world

and be as best prepared as possible, and have all the same attributes as

anybody, regardless of the economics that they come from or the geographic

community they come from.

Part of

that is making sure that they get to school safely, making sure their families

are not under the stress, making sure that their families still have all the

opportunities and not have to say we can't go to work today – Mom can't go to

work because she got to make sure me and my brother and sister get to school

safely.

there's a way of doing this. We need to have an open dialogue. I think the

professionals that are involved, the school administrators, the school board,

government officials, the providers of the bus service would find a solution

that's equitable for everybody and provides a service that's needed.

We'll

have an opportunity to talk about it again in Address in Reply.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR:

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

again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to

adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR :

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of the Committee of Supply.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of Supply

reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed her to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit

again?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted.

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The

Government Of The Province And Others, Bill 56, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The

Government Of The Province And Others, Bill 56, 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a

bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The

Province And Others,” carried. (Bill 56)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting A

Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others. (Bill

56)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 56 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 Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

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

Whole to consider Bill 42.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 42,

An Act To Establish An Oil And Gas Corporation For The

Province.

A bill,

“An Act To Establish An Oil And Gas Corporation For The Province.” (Bill 42)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want

to ask the minister in regard to the bill,

section 9 lists the general powers of

the corporation. In these subheadings,

section (

h) and (

i) deals with

guaranteeing the repayment of money and guaranteeing a deed, bond, et cetera.

I'm just

wondering, it could be consistent with other corporate entities, but do these

require the approval of the minister and/or Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and

should things like interest require shareholder approval. I'm just wondering if

you could give us some direction on that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

looking at my handy chart here. May I have a moment and I'll certainly answer –

maybe we can go on to the second question. I have to get my notes ready for it.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. We'll wait to get that information.

Section

10 specifically deals with the board of directors. So, in addition to directors

that's outlined under that

section the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can

appoint a representative to be a non-voting member of the board. Just if the

minister can comment on that – why that specification of independent director

actually exists in the bill to be a non-voting member.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Chair, independent

directors are directors that are independent of other corporations. If an

independent member – I'm sorry, it think what's he's referring to is the

independence of – or the placement on the board of directors of a government

employee, of a representative of the government. That would be non-voting. But,

independent directors would be voting. That is not an unusual corporate practice

to have to require independent directors.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

I just

wanted to look to, I believe it's

section 15, and that talks about the service

agreement with the appointment of a CEO. I know we mentioned it before, but the

minister at the time alluded to the fact that we would get to the

section

dealing with the CEO and severance and that type of issue.

Just if

she could explain to us, the current leaders – a VP in place with the in-house

division of Oil and Gas and with the new corporate entity that's been

established under this bill, that position, I'm sure, will be evaluated by some

human resource entity to determine, based on roles and responsibility, based on

the volume of funds that's been administered by that CEO what the remuneration

would be and what's comparable in other positions like that.

So,

what's the process for determining what that CEO, what the remuneration will be?

Is there an expectation that it be far more now than what's available to the

current VP – not that there's any indication that position would get it. Maybe

he would; maybe he wouldn't. But how is an evaluation done on where that CEO

salary is going to be set?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I

said yesterday, it is anticipated that all employees will transition from the

existing corporation, the existing Nalcor Oil and Gas corporation to the new

Crown corporation. So that transition and all their salaries will be maintained,

Mr. Chair.

I will

say that in this new legislation we have requested a change in normal practice

that where the LGIC does have oversight on the CEO's remuneration package. As

I've said throughout the course of this bill, we're trying to establish more

oversight from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So with the shared-services

arrangements, within this bill, the human resource component will be housed

within government and the Human Resources Secretariat will be reviewing all

positions, of course, and will be considering the job functions around those

positions, will be advising the board of directors on that. The board of

directors will then set what they believe to be adequate compensation, as well

as contract, but that will have to have LGIC, Lieutenant-Governor in Council,

oversight.

So I

think that's a good, positive effect, Mr. Chair, of making this new corporation

is the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the government, has

oversight and ability to have eyes into what the contract says and what the

remuneration is; and secondly, that the Human Resources Secretariat, under this

new shared services, will be able to play a role in the human resource

development within the organization.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that, but I guess the point I'm getting to – and this relates

to what we've been told in regard to extra cost or no extra cost, or even maybe

some less cost through some of the processes. When you're setting salary

structures, either the CEO or any other executive or non-bargaining positions

that are being transferred and you're not clearly indicating that those salaries

are being frozen, including the CEO, how could we determine that there's no

extra cost?

In the

evaluation of what is required for that new position related to this

organization and, as well, related to the subsidiary, which is the Bull Arm

site, which my understanding will need a CEO as well, that to me is new money

and increases or new positions. So how are we still at the point where we're

indicating that there's no new cost being incurred here?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am

advising this hon. House that in the process of making this a stand-alone

corporation – right now it's housed within Nalcor Oil and Gas, housed internal

to Nalcor. Most of them are highly specialized technical positions, Mr. Chair.

We are taking the view that most employees would be transitioning to the new

corporation. So we're in the process of transitioning.

However,

the policies allowed under the Human Resources Secretariat because of the shared

services, we'll keep an eye on those positions, we'll do the analysis of those

positions, we'll look at like-minded positions within government, within

industry and we'll do a job evaluation around those positions to determine the

path forward.

As I've

said, we're protecting the salaries of existing employees. If they move on to

other positions, there's going to be analysis of those positions to see if they

are highly technical and highly specialized, they may need a different salary

range than what they would have received within government. But like-minded

positions would be like-minded to government. I think I've been quite clear on

that.

So we

aren't anticipating any more expenses, any new expenses. We're actually

anticipating costs to be lower over time because of the shared-services model.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Just a

couple of questions, Minister. Coming back to

section 10 and the board of

directors, during the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, to date, we heard some disturbing

stuff in terms of members of board of directors not being really qualified when

it came to what Muskrat Falls was all about, and maybe even some people hired

not having qualifications that were needed.

I know

that

section 10 says that the board of directors will be appointed by the IAC,

and I know that involves the Public Service Commission process; but, I'm sort of

surprised that perhaps something could not have been put in here to indicate a

desire to have, number one, very particular expertise on the board of directors

and, number two, diversity on the board of directors.

We know

that the through the Public Service Commission process it is merit-based and it

does not look at things like diversity on the board of directors. And there's

nothing in the legislation to show some kind of concern for that, both in terms

of expertise and in terms of diversity, in particular, women. I think we all

know, and it's probably still the case, nearly every member of a board of

directors involved in the whole Nalcor family were men. I mean, that's there; we

know that. But there is nothing here to recognize the need for diversity and the

need for the very particular expertise.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I certainly appreciate the

question because

section 10 does speak to the requirements of the board of

directors, and the number who should be on a board of directors. I will point

out that we're talking about seven to 11 people, so seven being the minimum, 11

being the maximum, which I think is important to have a full board.

I am an

Institute of Corporate Directors director and I think it's very important to

have that expertise and the knowledge required on boards. I'm a supporter of the

Independent Appointments Commission for that very purpose.

So what

happens, for the Member opposite's view, is as you go forward to the Independent

Appointments Commission you lay out the requirements of that board. You consider

what the requirements of that board must be, what kind of expertise, what kind

of mix of expertise, what examples of expertise that you may require. And I'll

use, for example, a balanced board might have financial expertise, an oil and

gas expertise, there's a variety of expertise that you would look so that each

member of the board is able to contribute to that board in the fullest way

possible.

I would

say to the Member opposite, because of the Independent Appointments Commission

process, where you actually go to the Independent Appointments Commission with

the qualifications that you're considering, that you would need on that board,

with your requirements around diversity, with your requirements around location,

should there be any, I think that is all part of that independent appointments

process and I think it's very, very important.

But I'll

remind those watching today that in the act itself, it talks about the

corporation. The requirements of the composition of the board of the directors

will be between seven and 11 persons. In the

Corporations Act , you only have to have one director. And I think

this speaks to the point that the Member opposite was making; we are spelling

out in legislation, so it's not easily changed or anything, the minimum numbers

of boards of directors. I think that's positive step forward. I also think it's

a very positive step forward that we have an Independent Appointments Commission

where you go and ask for the expertise and ensure the expertise is provided to

that board.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I have

no problem with the IAC itself, I say to the minister. My concern has always

been – and when we debated the legislation here in the House initially, I raised

this as well – that the IAC receives applications from the Public Service

Commission. The Public Service Commission – so this is another issue, but it's

absolutely related – hires based on merit alone. They do not have any other

qualifiers with regard to hiring; it's merit alone.

Let's

say the Public Service Commission puts forward all men's names – and I'm sure

they'll be skilled. They'll have the skills that are required, because that will

be easy to determine. It will be easy to say to the PSAC we want people who have

experience in oil and gas, and aspects of exploration and production, et cetera,

et cetera, but they're not going to be able to say to the Public Service

Commission, we want diversity. So going to the IAC means nothing because if no

women's names have come forward to them, then they have no women's names to pass

on.

I agree

with the minister. What's in legislation would be really important. So why

doesn't the legislation recognize the need for diversity on the board of

directors?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

point the Member opposite is making is an important one. Obviously, as a female

and as a qualified director, I certainly appreciate the fact that more women

directors are required. I do know the percentages within this particular

administration have been quite good. I don't have today's latest numbers, but I

think they're almost in the gender-balance range.

I can

tell the Member opposite that when I go forward and ask for expertise for the

board of directors, I also ask for gender parity or gender equality. I also

think it's incumbent upon all of us in this House and, in particular, for those

that are looking for particular boards to try and seek out as many qualified

candidates as possible.

I say

that in sincerity, because sometimes you don't have as many women applying for

these positions, not because they're not qualified, Mr. Chair, but because

they're very busy. They're busy in their lives and they may not think to apply

for a particular position because of that, but they may be interested in

applying if you give them a call to remind them to consider the position.

So I

think there are multitudes of things we can do. First of all, under the IAC you

can request gender parity or consideration of gender on the board of directors,

as well as skills and requirements of merits of the board of directors. We can

encourage as many people as possible, as many females as possible, to put their

names forward for boards.

I do

spend a lot of my time encouraging people to put their name forward. We need

good, qualified people on our boards, both male and female. We need good,

qualified members. I encourage everyone to make that application because, of

course, these boards of directors are incredibly important for the future

positioning of these boards and the future positioning of this province. So, I

encourage as many people as possible.

But to

answer the Member's question directly, I think the Independent Appointments

Commission does have the opportunity to ensure that diversity and merit are

considered.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I leave

it at that. I've made my points. I don't think the minister and I will agree but

what I think, as a former minister responsible for the Status of Women and I'm

sure she does have a concern with regard to gender diversity on the boards of

directors, the government does need to look at the fact that the Public Service

Commission does not take into consideration anything but merit in hiring. And

that's the crux of the problem.

So why

does that exist? Why is there not a change so that the Public Service Commission

has other dimensions to the hiring, not just merit-based?

I'll

move on to my next question; it may be my only one. I'm not sure if this is a

question or an observation. I'm looking at

section 13: “Subject to a directive,

the directors shall (

a) exercise the powers of the corporation directly or

indirectly through the employees and agents of the corporation; and (

b) direct

the management of the business and affairs of the corporation.”

Again,

coming back to the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, which is informing a lot of stuff

right now I think as we move forward, and it should, there certainly are

questions with regard to – and I'm looking forward to the Commissioner's report,

once he does all of the work that he has to do, to confirm whether or not this

is accurate. But there seems to be indications of lack of full information on

the board of directors with regard to Muskrat Falls, lack of full information

flow between those running the corporation and those in the positions of being

hired to run the corporation, including the CEO and the board of directors.

So this

says the directors shall, subject to a directive, exercise the powers of the

corporation directly or indirectly through the employees and agents and, more

importantly, direct the management of the business and affairs. I'm thinking

that this relates very strongly to

section 28 where it says: “Where requested by

the minister, the corporation or a subsidiary shall provide the minister with

the records, reports and other documents he or she specifies in the request” and

then there's an exception, of course, with regard to commercial, scientific and

technical information.

The

important thing is this section,

section 28, is something that's not in the

Energy Corporation Act . It seems to be

in here, perhaps because of the experience of Muskrat Falls. So here it is

saying: “Where requested by the minister, the corporation or a subsidiary shall

provide the minister with records, reports and other documents he or she

specifies ….”

I think

connecting that back to

section 13, there should also be a statement in here

saying that the directors can request, because they need to know everything.

They need to be aware of the fact that they are the ones, sometimes, who may

have to ask for documents. They have to ask questions.

So it

seems to me there are parts of the legislation which certainly show a concern

for accountability. I just think that it could have been strengthened a bit here

in 13 to match what's written in 28 where it comes to the minister's requests.

Just observations – maybe the minister would like to make a comment on it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I think the Member opposite

is correct that we've learned a lot from the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, and we've

learned a lot through how the oversight of that project was managed, the

information that was available and when it was available, and that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council needs more provisions that allow for oversight.

Section 28, Mr. Chair, I think is an important one, actually.

Section 28 is:

Where requested by the minister, the corporation must provide additional

information to the minister.

This

provides an additional level of transparency and accountability, and the Member

opposite has noted that. And it is information that's not part of the public

reporting package. If, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, there was

information that the government required that was not forthcoming, we can go

seek it. I think that's absolutely important. The minister can obtain additional

information to ensure adequate government oversight, but public disclosure is

not mandated here due to confidentiality considerations, as we've noted earlier.

This is

adopted from a similar

section 20 of the Centre for Health Information Act that

was put through this House in 2018, and adopted from

section 5.2(2) of the

Energy Corporation Act . As you know,

we've made some amendments to that act to ensure that information will be

forthcoming in the future. So I thank the Member for her observation. She is

correct in that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has more provisions within

this act to ensure that clarity and oversight is there.

I would

like to answer a question from the Member for Ferryland. He asked about 9(h),

and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council approves any oil co guarantees where the

board of oil co would approve any Bull Arm Fabrication guarantees. So, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council would approve any guarantees of the corporation,

where the board of directors would be the subsidiary.

So I

just wanted to seek that clarity for him.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday when we were in Committee talking about this bill, one of the

questions I had asked had to relate to access to information, and we know the

concerns that have been raised at Nalcor as it relates to the

Energy Corporation Act and so on.

When I

raised the question about ATIPPA and so on, the minister did respond and

basically said that even Chief Justice Wells recognized the need to protect

commercially sensitive information. I just want to say for the record, first of

all, that for me, I totally understand that. I think everybody, I would hope

anybody listening or not listening would understand the fact that we have this

corporation, in order to do business, in order to be able to enter into

contracts and negotiations and so on with third parties, that there is going to

be information that's going to be commercially sensitive that must be protected.

And my

line of questioning had nothing to do – I was not discounting that fact. I was

not discounting what Chief Justice Wells said. I agree with what Chief Justice

Wells said. I agree that commercially sensitive information does have to be

protected. But the point I do want to make again, just for the record, and the

concern I have, is that when we faced this same dilemma at Nalcor, the Privacy

Commissioner, who is somebody who is appointed by the government of the day, who

would go through the Independent Appointments Commission, who would be somebody

who is qualified, probably a lawyer or whatever the case might be, and someone

who has the credentials, the education, the background experience, and hopefully

the good judgment to do this particular job that this person would be an

appropriate arbiter of such matters.

The

Privacy Commissioner – in the case of Nalcor and the embedded contractors and so

on – said that in his view there was no reason why Nalcor could not be the same

as other entities of government, of core government, whereby if somebody goes to

Nalcor, or in this case if somebody were to go to the Oil and Gas Corporation,

and they were looking for information that was deemed commercially sensitive,

and they were turned down, then they could go to the Privacy Commissioner and

the Privacy Commissioner would be the arbiter of whether or not he or she felt

that that was being turned down legitimately.

Because

if it's going to work the same way as it does at Nalcor, what we found out in

the past was that Nalcor could just simply say everything they asked them, oh,

that's commercially sensitive. No requirement to give an explanation as to what

made it commercially sensitive other than just to say listen, I couldn't be

bothered with you, it's commercially sensitive, go away, end of story, and no

mechanism of appeal other than going through the courts.

Whereby,

if we had it under regular ATIPPA rules and they said – first of all, they'd

have to give an explanation to explain to the person why they can't have it, not

just simply say it's commercially sensitive as a catch-all phrase to turn down

every request. They would have to say this is the reason why, an explanation as

to why you can't have that particular information.

If the

individual disagreed, the individual could go to the Privacy Commissioner. The

Privacy Commissioner would look at that request and then that independent third

party appointed by the Independent Appointments Commission, appointed by this

House, would determine whether or not the information that was being sought was

indeed commercially sensitive or if it could be released.

Then, if

the Oil and Gas Corporation disagreed with that decision, they could go to

court. Let them go to court and have a judge determine because they have the

ability, the means, and the resources to do that;

whereas an individual – unless

you're somebody who has a lot of resources personally or whatever the case might

be, who is going to be able to take it to court? The bottom line is you're going

to go to them and they're going to say no, you can't have it. If you don't like

it, go to court. Then that's the end of the story. Information doesn't get out

there. Again, these are not my words. These are the words of our former Privacy

Commissioner, Donovan Molloy. He said it as it applied to Nalcor. I didn't say

it; he said it.

For the

record, I can't see why we can't have a little more openness and transparency in

that regard and allow the Privacy Commissioner to be the one to determine, not

the CEO of the new Oil and Gas Corporation, whoever he or she might be in the

future.

The

other thing I just wanted to raise – it's a question, and the minister can

comment if she like. She's probably not going to on this one. I believe, as I

think I said in second reading, that this is phase 1 of the dismantling of

Nalcor, which I'm not against by the way – which I'm not against, but I believe

this is phase 1.

Once

Muskrat Falls clues up, we're going to find ourselves in a situation where we're

not going to need to have Nalcor who all they're going to do, their board is

going to govern Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because there's nothing else

left. All we're going to need is the Oil and Gas Corporation and Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro and that will be the end of it. We won't need the CEO of

Nalcor paying him $650,000 a year and all the other staff and stuff associated

with that. That will all be gone. It's a way to save money and it kind of makes

sense to me, to be honest with you.

I'm just

going to ask – the minister probably won't answer and I understand if she

doesn't. But is this really the first step and is the intent really to do, as

I'm saying, after this piece is done, is the intent then to consolidate, I'll

use that word, Nalcor and Newfoundland Hydro into one entity as opposed to two

entities, so to speak, or an entity with a subsidiary as we have now?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

understand the passion with which the Member is speaking about access to

information and the requirements for openness and transparency. I will say to

the Member opposite, one of the reasons why I think it is important that we have

a stand-alone corporation reporting directly into government is for that clarity

of information. I think that's very important, rather than having a board report

to another board.

I will

say this, Justice Wells, in his deliberations around ATIPPA and around the

Energy Corporation Act , did recognize

commercial sensitivity, as the Member opposite has said. He talked a lot about

the commercial risks and the risks around public disclosure and the fact that if

there is a risk of disclosure that perhaps we won't get the information that we

require from our commercial partners. The commercial partners would be reluctant

to give information in case it ever became public and disclosed.

The

Privacy Commissioner, under the ATIPPA legislation, is required to be as open

and transparent as they possibly can. That is a good thing for the province.

I will

say to the Member opposite that, of course, the Privacy Commissioner will pass

comment and pass judgment. I will give him an incident. In the last 10 years, I

understand – I'll say that – there's been once that the oil and gas corporation

within Nalcor had to go to the CEO and make a determination. They couldn't

release information once in that 10-year period, and the Privacy Commissioner

agreed. The Privacy Commissioner can weigh in on the fact and could actually go

to court if they thought it should be released.

So, I'll

say it's an element of risk, Mr. Chair, an element of ensuring that the

information is able to flow between the Crown corporation and its private sector

partners. Most of them, I think almost all of them, are publicly traded. There

are a lot of rules around publicly traded information, Mr. Chair. I would think

that there is a requirement and an understanding of commercial sensitivity risk.

I'm sure if there is anything that is required to be released, that the Privacy

Commissioner can weigh into that and can go to court, if required.

On the

second point that he was making as to the future plans of any organization or

corporation, of course, he wants me to pontificate, I guess, a little bit and I

can't do that at this point in time, Mr. Chair, and I'll leave it at that.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

I thank the minister for her

response. I didn't think you could answer, but I thought I'd throw it out there

anyway. Why not? I believe that's where it's going. We'll see what happens.

The only

other point I wanted to make and I suppose it's more of a statement than it is a

question, but to the minister, as you're developing regulations, policy and so

on that's going to be governing this new entity, given the fact that we have

sort of a clean slate, I would certainly recommend that one of the things in

terms of more openness, transparency and so on, is to establish right from the

get-go, if we can, more proactive disclosure. Whatever we can possibly put out

there online, whatever, of that corporation so that people don't need to go

looking for information, that would make it even better.

So,

proactive disclosure is certainly – we should be doing it in government anywhere

we possibly can but with this new entity I think that would be what we should

do, given the fact that we do have a clean slate and we want to build trust and

faith in this new organization, which has been lost in the current one I

believe. I think that would be certainly a positive step.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to reference

section 21 of the bill deals with subsidiaries of the

corporation and just ask the minister,

section 21(3) and (5) if we compare it to

the Energy Corporation Act , it's not

contained. That indicates that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's approval is

required to set up a subsidiary.

I'm just

wondering: Is there a change there and do you expect to do the same with the

Energy Corporation Act ?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Well, first of all, to the

Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, I appreciate his recommendations and

certainly we will endeavour to impress him with our openness and really trying

to be as transparent I think of the new corporation. This is a great

opportunity. We all want to see oil and gas developed and we all want to see

that proactive disclosure. I think he's made a very valid point.

To the

Member for Ferryland's point, 21(3), LGIC, Lieutenant-Governor in Council,

government approval is needed for any shared transactions involving the

subsidiary. It's the same as

section 14.1(1) of the

Energy Corporation Act . Consolidated all provisions on subsidiaries

into one

section for ease of reference. So, it's the same as.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So it's been reassigned, but

it's the same the minister is saying – the approvals are the same for setting up

of a subsidiary under the Energy

Corporation Act as it is under this current bill. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I understood that he was

talking about 21(3)? I'm just checking with the Member opposite. He referenced

21(3) which is on shared transactions and I just want to make sure it's not a

different

section that he's thinking about, but 21(3), the LGIC approval is

needed for any shared transactions involving a subsidiary. So, if you have a

subsidiary and you're going to sell your shares or move your shares or change

your shares, the government has to make that approval process and that is the

same as what's in the Energy Corporation

Act under 14.1(1).

Section

21(4): “The objects of the subsidiary shall be some or all of the objects of the

corporation.” That's just so that there's no need for a subsidiary to have

separate objects in the legislation. And again, that's the same as 14.1(2) of