PDF Version

March 6, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 52

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

We have

some special guests with us just for a few minutes this morning, and I would

invite you to please welcome – I'm going to speak a little bit of Ukrainian this

morning; it's a new language for me:

доброго

ранку мої колеги,

Я радий

представити - Його Високоповажність посол в Канаду з України – Andriy

Shevchenko!

Dear

colleagues,

welcome you. This is the Ukrainian Ambassador to Canada: Andriy Shevchenko.

And it's

a great honour to meet him this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Mr. Shevchenko is a former

legislator in the Ukrainian government. He's actually responsible having

escorted some 60 pieces of legislation through his parliament, so he's very well

familiar with what we're doing here today, and we've had a little tour and an

excellent discussion.

I thank

you again. (Ukrainian spoken.)

MR. A. PARSONS:

(Inaudible.)

Very

nice to have you here, Mr. Ambassador.

Orders of the Day

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 52.

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 the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The motion is carried.

On 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 Bill 52,

An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance.

A bill,

“An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance.”

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Question

on the bill – the Student Loan Corporation, of course, is now defunct and the

Student Loan Corporation produces an annual report, as is required to

government.

I would

ask the question: What mechanisms are now in place to ensure that the agency

report will now be undertaken by the two departments that are looking after it?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

The new act doesn't directly

respond to that, but I will find that information out for the hon. Member and

I'll get right back to him with that information.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Question

for the minister opposite: Does the Department of Finance have the necessary

staff to handle the increased workload of the collections division?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Very good question. The staff

from the Student Loan Corporation was transferred over in, I think it was

November, December, to the Department of Finance. Everyone was transferred, with

the exception of two people that were left with the Student Loan Corporation for

dissemination of the loans and two positions that were currently vacant at that

point at a savings of about $400,000.

So they

do have the full complement. They believe that they can do the collections and

get efficiencies based on having all collections focused in the Department of

Finance for this particular area.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank

you for answering one of my questions already in advance, about how much is

being saved. As you know, this is dealing with students who are either looking

for a loan or in default.

How are

we communicating the information out to students or those who are in default as

to where they have to go or what the new mechanism is?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Madam Chair, as we had said

in my

preamble to the act, when we brought the act forward in first reading – or

second reading, sorry – there will be absolutely impact to students. They won't

see any impact whatsoever. They will still receive the loans in the same way

they have. They will still receive calls on collections in the same way they

have, mostly likely from the same people that were doing it before.

There's

very little change in the legislation from that perspective. It's just going to

provide us an opportunity to provide more efficient use of the public service,

save money for government, but not impact the services to students whatsoever.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A final

question: Has the minister taken into consideration, or had conversations with

the MUN Students' Union?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Madam Chair, I just wanted to

let the Member know I have an answer to his first question that he asked about

the report. Yes, they will continue to do the exact same report they were doing

before.

With

respect to the Students' Union, I will check on whether the Students' Union was

contacted on this, but my understanding is that it was consultation on all

fronts on this, but there is no impact to students. There will be no impact to

the Students' Union in this area. The loans will still be disseminated in the

exact same way they were before. They will be collected in the exact same way

they were before.

All

we're doing is a housekeeping item and moving the people in one area to another

area within government to create a savings from a fee structure that was of

$220,000 and $178,000 in savings for two vacant positions. It gives us an

opportunity to get some economies of scale within the collections, and we think

we can do a better job on collecting some of the funds that we have not

collected in the past. We think we'll have the ability to do that a little bit

better by having it all housed in the one area.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I ask

the minister, under

section 6, Financial Institution: “The minister may, in

writing, designate the financial institutions that may be lenders under this

Act.”

I ask

the minister: Who is the actual lender today, and is there a need for that to

change or will it change in the future?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

There will be no change to that, as it exists right now. As I said to the hon.

Member that asked the previous question, there will be no change to how the

loans are disseminated, how they will be collected. The only difference is the

location of the people who are doing the collections.

So it

gives us an opportunity to get some economies of scale by having the collections

focused in Finance where they are good at that collecting side – not that our

individuals weren't good at it, because they were doing a very good job of

collecting those loans as well, but we wanted to try to get those savings that

we are able to administer based on what

The Way Forward has talked about with respect to doing a review of ABCs and

trying to reduce our ABCs, our agencies, boards and commissions. If they can be

housed in government, let's do it, it makes better sense to do that, and it's an

economic savings for the people of the province.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Just to be clear, the definition of financial

institution is defined as: “(

i) a bank to which the

Bank Act (Canada) applies, (ii) a credit union incorporated or

continued under the Credit Union Act ,

and (iii) those other persons that are designated by the minister.”

My question is not so much about the consolidation and

the issues in regard to the administration coming from the corp into two line

departments but, more specially, there's a banking institution that is

designated by the minister. The question is: Has that changed? Will it change?

Who is the current banking institution that's been designated by the minister?

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

DAVIS:

There has been no change, but I will double-check to get the information for the

hon. Member.

Good question.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 to 33 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 to 33 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 33 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in

favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having

passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

I recognize the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. COADY: I move, Madam Chair, the Committee rise and report

Bill 52.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 52.

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 the Whole House.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

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

directed me to report Bill 52 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and directed her to report Bill 52 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,

by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Order 4, third

reading of Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 52,

An Act

Respecting Student Financial Assistance, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Student Financial Assistance. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 7,

second reading of Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted

to have some remarks on the bill that we're introducing – or we're doing second

reading on today, the Public Bodies

Reporting Act , Bill 50. Just wanted to explain why we're making these

amendments –

MR. SPEAKER:

Require a mover and a

seconder, Sir.

You need

a mover and a seconder.

MR. OSBORNE:

Sorry.

I move

second reading of

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act, Bill 50,

seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act.”

(Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the act was introduced to ensure that government had access to

workforce and compensation-related information from our agencies, boards and

commissions. As all Members remember when this act was introduced, the intention

of the act was to remove the barriers – our agencies, boards and commissions

were indicating they wanted to co-operate with government in putting in place

attrition plans and getting agencies, boards and commissions in line with what

government were doing in terms of finding some savings as we did with core

government departments.

The act

facilitates the sharing of information and enables government to better work

with public bodies. Since the introduction of the act, we've been having very

productive conversations with our agencies, boards and commissions and it has

removed the barriers that existed at the time, which were discussed during the

debate on the bill when it was introduced.

After

the act was finalized, it was brought to government's attention that the

definition of a public body, as introduced in the act, was so broad, or too

broad, that it included some entities that are not funded by government, and

that was not the intention of the act. We weren't intending, for example, the

Law Society or ARNNL or others – they weren't intended. We didn't require them

to be part of the act.

This is

essentially housekeeping, just to ensure the act is not so broad as to include

entities that are not directly funded by government and salaries paid by

government, for example. The act was only intended to address the entities that

are publicly funded and part of the public service.

So it

has come to our attention that the definition of a public body, as introduced in

the act, included self-regulated industries outside of the public service. As

that was never the intention of the act, this housekeeping bill today will

clarify the definition of a public body under the act to exclude self-regulated

and non-public service entities.

Mr.

Speaker, the current legislation has no negative impact on any entity. It just

left a question as to whether or not government could compel self-regulated,

non-public service entities to provide information, which is something we never

intended to do and don't require.

So, as I

stated when I introduced this piece of legislation initially, being responsible

for managing the public Treasury, and part of that is having a complete picture

of how the funds are used in both core government as well as our agencies,

boards and commissions. That was the intent of the bill, but it was never

intended for self-regulated industries.

So,

we're making this change today to ensure that the act addresses only what it was

intended to address and to ensure that there's no confusion regarding

self-regulated or non-public service entities in the province.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to comments by all Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise to speak to Bill 50,

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Reporting

Act.

As the

minister has indicated, this deals with the initial piece of legislation that

was introduced by this government related to access to information related to

whether it was a public body.

The act

defines public body to include: “a corporation, the ownership of which, or a

majority of the shares of which is vested in the Crown and its subsidiaries, and

(ii) a corporation, board, commission or other body, the majority of the members

of which, or a majority of the members of the board of directors of which are

appointed by

an Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or a minister.”

So the

bill looks at defining a public body. The minister has said, when he originally

brought in the legislation, this wasn't anticipated. It wasn't understood in

regard to particularly, I assume, professional organizations out there who may

support – you know, support professions related to the public service; yet, in

terms of definition of public body may not be a corporation, the ownership of

which rests with the Crown, and or the majority of shares in that entity rests

with the Crown. So, therefore, I assume there was come concern expressed in

regard to government's ability to access that information and a debate on

whether exactly it should be available based on this piece of legislation.

The

reporting requirements of this Public

Bodies Reporting Act gave the minister, who is responsible for Human

Resource Secretariat, legal authority for the minister to request salary and

related information from public bodies. They would include agencies, boards and

commissions, and that's what the original legislation intended to do.

When you

look at the Explanatory Notes in the bill, the amendment will “exclude

self-regulating professions” as we talked about for the bodies which the

minister can request that information from. So we're drawing a distinction here

between the actual bodies and entities that the minister who is responsible for

Human Resource Secretariat, who he or she can actually request information from

and what that information is.

Through

the legislative change we're talking about here this morning, the definition of

public bodies is being amended and a particular

section is being removed, which

would read: “established by or continued under

an Act of the Province.”

When

this act was originally written, we assume that was put in, sort of, as a

catch-all to ensure there was no ABC that would be left out and it would be

collective in terms of who would be seen or who would be directed by the

legislation and covered by it. Our understanding since the legislation was

passed, some of the self-regulating professions or organizations have expressed

some concern about that and gives the minister the ability to direct them to

submit that information.

I guess

the issue is, in regard to the bill and the overall intent of the bill, is to

look at those entities and organizations, whether they're professional

organizations, self-regulating, are they publicly funded or not, where do they

get their funds from? And, based on that, do they fit into the category of

public bodies, and that would go to any of those professional organizations,

and, as well, go to those that are owned by government boards that are not

appointed by government.

Those

professional organizations may have boards or entities set up that are appointed

by the membership. So government, the Executive Council, would have no input

into those appointments on the board. That would be one of the distinctions

we're looking at here in regard to the bill.

One of

the interesting points in regard to the actual definition, it says: “a

corporation, the ownership of which or a majority of the shares ….” So I guess

in committee we can have some more discussion.

What

happens when government does have funding that's directed out to an organization

or group, but they may not direct the majority or have majority shares? What

happens in that instance? Because in that instance there could be public funds

that are being directed to an organization. It may not have majority control by

the Crown – the Crown may not control that organization, yet there are public

funds being directed into that organization. Is there a caveat there that there

is accountability for those funds, even though it's not a majority? Because at

the end of the day, it is still public funds that are being directed.

We know

through line departments or through ABCs, there are often funds or grants

directed out. So in doing that, and putting this amendment in, are we

restricting the ability to government to reach out if there are funds in an

organization – it may not be the majority of funds, it may not be majority

shares, but there could be an involvement there of public monies.

Does

this bill restrict in any way government's ability to find out how that money is

being used, how it's been executed in that actual organization? Even though it

could be self-regulated, it could be a board that the government has no

authority to appoint, it doesn't go through Executive Council, it was done by a

self-regulated agency or profession. They're appointing the board members, yet

there could be public money or grants directed to that organization. So what's

the accountability and is it restricted in any way by this bill today? We'd

certainly like to hear the minister speak to that when we get to Committee and

clarify exactly what that would mean.

Mr.

Speaker, overall, the intent – we certainly understand that an error was made in

the original piece of legislation and this is to correct it based on some of the

concerns expressed regarding those organizations or professional designations

and how they handle themselves and regulate themselves, either through that

actual organization and/or through the appointment of board members.

Overall,

we certainly understand the intent and some of the representations that have

been made to government in regard to this, I assume. We certainly look forward

to having more questions in Committee and certainly listening to debate.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

speakers to the bill?

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand and speak to this bill this morning. It's more than a

housekeeping bill. I think it's a bill which clarifies a serious consideration.

The bill, as the minister and the Opposition House Leader have explained, gives

the minister authority to require agencies, boards – I mean the act that the

bill is amending gives the minister authority to require agencies, boards and

commissions to provide information and documents relating to that public body.

In the

act, as has been said, the ABCs – if I can say that for the public that I won't

repeat agencies, boards and commissions every time – had a definition which

wasn't clear when it came to bodies, for example, that are self-regulated bodies

and that's been explained.

For

example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is a self-regulated

body but is not included under our act. I think the important thing is the

understanding of what the act is about, the act that's being amended by the

clear definition of which boards, agencies and commissions are covered.

supported the act when it came in because this act was meant to provide relevant

information government needs about expenditures of agencies, boards and

commissions. There seemed to be a problem existing when some agencies wanted to

protect information that they deemed commercially sensitive and they also wanted

to protect personal information, such as retirement projections. Because of this

situation, a situation where ABCs were actually withholding information and

using the ATIPPA as their reason for doing it, it actually forced the need for

putting in this act about public bodies reporting, because that's the act that's

being amended, Public Bodies Reporting.

There

was never intention to prevent government from obtaining necessary information

from ABCs under the ATIPPA. That was never intended. So when the

Public Bodies Reporting Act was put in

place, it was put in place to amend that issue, to take care of that issue.

actually had a pretty serious situation in the province that this

Public Bodies Reporting Act probably was put in place because of. In

2013, an investigation by the province's Auditor General showed that the

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information – what was under ABC

umbrella – a public agency was paying salaries completely out of whack with the

government's pay scales. Employees made more money than any other government

employees doing the same job, and jobs were reclassified to higher pay scales

more frequently than in the rest of government. It was only discovered because

of the Auditor General doing an investigation.

So,

that's the kind of issue that brought into play the

Public Bodies Reporting Act so that public bodies would be required

to be accountable to government and not use protection under another act such as

ATIPPA to not give information.

Now that

we have this amendment, it's perfectly clear from the amendment what public

bodies are covered by the Public Bodies

Reporting Act , and I think it's essential that this has happened. So now,

with the amendment, public body includes ABCs. It includes “a corporation,

board, commission or other body, the majority of the members of which, or a

majority of the members of the board of directors of which are appointed by an

Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or a minister ….”

So, it's

very clear now what we mean by a public body. The self-regulating bodies who

were concerned that they were actually covered by the

Public Bodies Reporting Act , they will not be included, very clearly

– I don't think they were meant to be included anyway, but this clarifies it and

makes it very certain.

Having

said that, yes, we will be voting for this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take very long but I, too, will be supporting this bill. Obviously,

when this legislation was originally passed, I think it was basically an

oversight or, at the time, that nobody really considered the fact that this

could impact self-regulating entities like the Medical Association, the Law

Society and so on.

As the

Member just said, I don't think it was ever the intent to do so anyway;

nonetheless, the way the legislation reads, it could certainly infer that they

would be included. So we're just seeking clarity through this bill to say that

self-regulating entities that are not in receipt of public funds and so on, that

they would not be included, so I will support that.

I guess

on the bigger issue of the public bodies,

Public Bodies Reporting Act and so on, I can remember last year when we

debated it, I said at the time I was astounded by the fact that it wasn't

already a requirement, that we actually had to pass that legislation. Given the

fact that so much of the public purse is actually administered through agencies,

boards and commissions – the majority of it, actually – and the fact that they

would not have a requirement to report to the minister on vital information, on

taxpayers' money, that was astounding that that wasn't in place, so we all

supported that at the time.

The only

point I will make, and I made I think at the time, if we're talking about the

reporting of information to government, we also had another bill come before the

House last year. It was an amendment to the

Energy Corporation Act concerning Nalcor. At the time I felt that it

didn't go far enough to getting government, and the public, information that

would be required from Nalcor. In particular, the issue at the time was on those

embedded contractors. We were assured that this was going to do it, and of

course we all know that after the legislation was passed, the public was still

denied the information on the embedded contractors.

So, I

brought that up during the discussion on the

Public Bodies Reporting Act last year, subsequent to the other bill,

and the Minister of Natural Resources at the time indicated that there was more

to come, that it was under review and there would be more to come. So I

certainly look forward, during this sitting of the House, to the Minister of

Natural Resources standing on her feet and bringing forth another amendment to

the Energy Corporation Act that will

require Nalcor to fall under ATIPP legislation so that we can get information

about what's going on in Nalcor, information such as what happened with embedded

contractors and other vital information to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

With

that said, I will certainly support this bill. It's just basically housekeeping

and it clarifies an oversight.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no further speakers,

if the hon. the –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis? No, okay.

If the

Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat speaks now, he will

close debate.

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

getting excited, I thought another Member was standing to speak and I –

MR. SPEAKER:

I had the same thought.

MR. OSBORNE:

I thank the Members opposite,

and all Members of the House, that have contributed to this bill or provided

information and direction privately when this issue came up initially, in order

to protect non-regulated bodies such as the Law Society or the Medical

Association, for example, or other non-regulated entities that are not intended

to be captured under this.

The

Department of Justice, when they provided the legislation, it was intended to be

broad and capture all agencies, boards and commissions, but the intent to be

broad captured those other entities which were never intended to be captured. So

it's only those entities that are not intended to be captured now, that are not

captured under this legislation. If the salaries or if the entity is truly an

entity of government it will be captured under this.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Is the

House ready for the question?

The

motion is that Bill 50 be now read a second 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.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Bodies Reporting Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act,” read a second

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

(Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 50.

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 the said bill, Bill 50.

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 50,

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act.” (Bill 50)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I spoke

of this in second reading, I wonder if the minister could just address and give

some insight into the fact that under the definition of public body it talks

about: “a corporation, the ownership of which or a majority of the shares of

which is vested in the Crown and its subsidiaries.”

If there

is a case where public funds are directed to an organization that's not within

the control of the Crown or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointment and

there is money given, it could be a small amount, is there any method or any –

does this bill provide any restriction in regard to the government seeking

information as to that expenditure, how it's used within that organization or

group?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, it's a valid point, but

it's also very complex – if government provides money to the Boy Scouts of

Canada and Choices for Youth and other entities that are not intended to be

captured under this bill. So we're not looking to be broad enough that if

government provides funding to an organization, the Cancer Society or likewise,

that's never intended to be captured under this. If the salaries are considered

– if the positions are considered to be public servants, such as they are at the

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation or Legal Aid, for example, those are the

entities that we are intending to catch here.

The

intent of the bill, initially, was to help in attrition planning. Looking at the

people eligible to retire; looking at – in some cases without any effect on

existing employees, because you wouldn't want to be punitive, but as new people

are hired, if there's an entity that pays considerably higher for an accounting

clerk or a clerk typist, for example, then government does eventually – we're

looking at bringing those in line so that those entities, in terms of – whether

it's attrition planning or retirements and so on, we can work with the entities

to ensure that it's more closely aligned with government.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Mr. Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 50.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 50.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 50 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report Bill 50 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

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 Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole.

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 Bill 48,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.” (Bill 48)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. DINN:

Has the minister considered

the key stakeholders when looking at this bill in terms of the seafood

producers, the Association of Seafood Producers and FFAW?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you

for the question.

We have

met with the stakeholders. All the stakeholders are in agreement with the intent

of the legislation that came out of the panel. So, from that perspective, we're

happy with where we are with this sort of housekeeping items from this

legislation.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the

bill we're changing the time period for the panel to review – actually, we're

doubling it from 48 to 96 hours. What factors came into consideration with

coming up with that figure of 96?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, Madam Chair, we talked

with the stakeholders involved. There was some back and forth on the time frame,

but we wanted to make sure we gave an opportunity for the panel to be convened,

do their research, get the information, come back and put that forward.

Forty-eight hours wasn't enough time and it was causing a little bit of a

problem for them to try to reach that. This allows them to give them a little

bit more time to pull all the pieces together, to make the informed decision and

make sure the parties are involved as well.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For

clarification, Minister, the 96 hours, are they Monday to Friday or are they

calendar hours?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Very good question. It is

calendar hours; it is not business hours. It's from the start of the

reconsideration report on.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the

Explanatory Notes it speaks to “allow non-majority fish processors or

processors' organizations who have engaged in collective bargaining or appeared

before the panel at the original hearing to apply to the panel to reconsider a

decision respecting price and conditions of sale.”

A single

licence holder of fish processing, are they entitled to engage in the collective

bargaining process and, as well, the appeal process?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

The panel has the authority

to reconsider decisions issued upon a request from a certified bargaining agent,

an accredited processor or an organization that way.

What

we're trying to do is the intent of the legislation, when it was crafted, was to

allow those that participated in the collective bargaining side as well as if

they appeared before the panel, give them the opportunity to request for

reconsideration. Not to say that the panel would hear the reconsideration; it

depends on market conditions as dictated in the act prior to – in the part of

the act above.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

understanding was there were organizations that represented the fish processing

industry and those were the ones that would make representation to the panel.

What we're seeing here now, it's non-majority fish processors.

So an

individual processor who's a licensed processor, my question is: Can they engage

in the original collective bargaining process in regard to fish pricing and

those types of things as an individual processor, as opposed to being part of a

larger group? Is it now the availability of that single processor to engage in

all of that, and as well, to engage in the panel and the appeals process as an

individual processor?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

As I mentioned before, the

original intention of the legislation was to provide a mechanism to request

reconsideration for the panel decision if the currency or the market conditions

changed. What we'll allow is the non-majority processors the ability to come

forward and ask for that reconsideration.

This is

what it's dealing with, only the reconsideration process. There's still the

collective bargaining side that needs to be handled as well, and that's dealt

with in the act as well, but not being changed here today.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

I was

wondering if there was any consideration given to timing, because a lot of times

you'll see the panel will make its decision on pricing just days before the

harvest actually starts. I know it puts harvesters in an awful predicament

sometimes, especially with quotas like shrimp and crab that have been cut

recently, and it's a huge effect that it has on the fishery.

So I'm

just wondering if any timing was put into consideration that the panel has to

make a decision before, say for example, crab season starts early April, if it

had to be a week or two weeks beforehand when the panel would meet and to set

the price so harvesters, rather than a couple of days, would have an idea of

when the pricing – and it would mean a lot to them because it's set up for their

fishery.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The

amendments that we're talking about here today were brought forward through

consultation with the former panel members, the FFAW, the other processors in

the industry, the key stakeholders. And what we're trying to address is some

knowledge continuity on the panel, making sure that we have a staggered approach

in appointment dates, so that'll allow for us to keep some of the knowledge base

within our panel to ensure that that's there.

Also to

bring in line the alternate members as well so they can stay and serve until

they're reappointed and/or replaced. And then the others deal with obviously the

time lag to make a decision on a reconsideration, giving people the opportunity

to pull people together, which 48 hours is a very short period of time, but we

understand it has to be a short period of time because the fishing industry is

such that there are small windows where people have the opportunity to go out,

and the hon. Member would know that very, very well.

We have

to be nimble and able to move on those quickly, but this was made in

consultation with the industry and the key players there. So what they proposed

was what we're trying to implement that we can get agreement on with everybody,

and it seemed to work very well for this piece of legislation.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a

point of clarification, if the minister could.

Section 2 (1.1) says: “… a

processor that does not produce the majority percentage of a fish species or a

processors' organization that represents processors that do not produce the

majority percentage of a fish species may apply to the panel ….”

They

could apply to the panel to be heard based on a pricing and conditions of sale

that have been set. So it further goes on to say: The panel would, then, at that

time, “may reconsider its decision and may confirm or vary the decision taking

into consideration the criteria it may establish and in accordance with the

regulations.”

So my

question to the minister is just to confirm that in that particular case where a

respective price may have been set and/or conditions of sale and a non-majority

processor requests to be heard and is heard, and if the panel was to change the

original decision, does that decision then be across the board for all species

and all of the industry for that particular year?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The

understanding is yes. After the reconsideration is heard, that would be the

final –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I'm

having trouble hearing.

MR. DAVIS:

– decision of the panel,

based on what the decision of the panel comes from after that reconsideration.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The

minister opposite mentioned the staggered times in terms of allowing for

flexibility and continuity. I just have a fairly simple question, I guess. How

do you see that rolling out when you have a panel in place now? Who gets the

short straw in terms of time, and how do you see that working out?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, very good questions

today.

What we

envision seeing this roll out, I would – by staggering it, they don't all leave

the one time. So we don't have to replace the entire panel at the end of a

three-year cycle. We can have someone – panel a person, go for three, 3½ years.

We can have someone go for a little under two years.

So, to

keep some continuity of knowledge base about the decisions being made, the

processes that are in place, rather than having to, on day one, after three

years, having a full, new panel come in having to try to get themselves up to

speed, which is difficult in this industry because there is a lot of knowledge

that – we don't want to lose that knowledge at the table. So it's important.

It's a

very good question. It's going to be staggered so that you won't have to be

replaced all at the one time. You can replace one at a time, two, and then go

from there.

I hope

that answers your question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It did

and it didn't. Just for clarification, Minister, I'm assuming what you're saying

is when it hits the three-year period, from that period on we'll start to see

changes. So there won't be any immediate changes. Am I correct on that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

You're correct in that. We

don't anticipate any changes. But what it will allow you to do is at the end of

a three-year term, rather than having to replace all three panel members, have

them all replaced the one time, you could replace one after the other over a

period of time. So there's an ability to train the new people that go on the

panel.

I hope

that answers your question a little more clearly.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of

all, I'll just say that I never got to speak in second reading because it went

through so fast. I actually stepped outside the House for a couple minutes to

take a phone call, when I came back we were done.

I'll

just say for the record that I do support the bill and the idea of staggering

members of the board. That only makes good, common sense. I think that's what

happens in most boards, actually, across government because – and even other

organizations because it just makes all the sense in the world to do so.

In terms

of the other piece about the non-majority fish processors and so on having the

ability to appeal decisions, which I think with any board or organization like

that there should always be an opportunity for anyone to appeal anything,

really, because mistakes can be made. Perhaps there was information that was

lacking or oversights or whatever. So, to have an appeal mechanism per se, is a

good thing. It makes sense in any case, regardless of what we're talking about,

I believe.

First of

all, I do want to agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis. Given the fact we

do have such a short window to catch certain species of fish and so on, which

would be allocated by the federal government, and, of course, we have to bear in

mind weather conditions and everything else, and there is a lot of work to it. I

would hope and I would assume, because it has gone through the FFAW and through

the processors and so on, have all been consulted on this, that I would think

there would be enough lead time, not just for the board to make the decision,

but also an additional buffer that if someone wanted to appeal that decision,

that there is sufficient time to have the decision made, have the decision also

appealed or potentially appealed, and potentially a new decision rendered in

lots of time prior to the actual fishery starting. I would think that's the

case, and I would certainly agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis on that.

The only

question I have, and I don't have all the original bill per se, just the

amendment and what we have here. But it's talking about minority fish processors

being able to appeal a decision. That's obviously something new. So does that

mean that majority processors and, say, union, like the FFAW, they already have

that right to appeal a decision? Because it doesn't talk about them, it just

talks about minority processors, if you will, being able to appeal. It doesn't

say anything about union or majority. So I'm assuming they must already have

that right. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Intent

is paramount in the bill. The intent with any legislation is very important – in

this case. I will take that under advisement what you're talking about for

pricing side. But, yes, the panel has the ability to provide a mechanism to

require reconsideration for people that have participated in the collective

bargaining and or have appeared before the panel. So it gives that ability, like

you mentioned before, that they should have that opportunity. That was always

the intent in the bill, but it was an oversight I think when they did the bill

back then.

So the

panel and the parties involved are all supportive of the intent of what we're

trying to do here to make the ability for people to come forward. To your

statement earlier, yes, the FFAW already has that ability.

CHAIR:

Before we continue, could I

respectfully ask those – just to keep your conversations down, or as the Speaker

mentioned, to take them outside, respectfully, because Members can't hear the

debate. So could we, please, keep quiet a little bit?

Thank

you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

I thank the minister for

that.

Minister, the only other thing that came to mind in reviewing this is let's say

a decision is made and – this is sort of a hypothetical now, the best way I can

put it. So a decision is made, and let's assume that the FFAW perhaps and the

majority processors or the main bargaining agent for processors, whatever, they

have agreed, they have made their representation, a decision has been made by

the board – or the panel, I should say – and they're in agreement with it but

then a minority processor has some issue with it, for argument's sake. Whatever

that might be, I have no idea. So that minority shareholder decides they are

going to request a reconsideration of that decision.

So my

question is, if that were to happen, would then the FFAW and the majority

shareholder be notified of the fact that a request for reconsideration is in?

Because if a minority person is coming forward and saying I want this changed,

then, obviously, the others who already had agreed to it are going to want to

know what it is they want changed and whether or not they agree with it. And

they may want to say, well, if this person is coming to make this representation

we want to be there to give our side to say, no b'y, we don't agree with that

for whatever reason. So they can't just come in, one person, and then change it

for everybody, I guess that's the point.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

It's

important to realize that the panel has the – currently, if we change that, yes,

a non-majority would have the ability to come forward. But, there has also got

to be two criteria met quite explicitly in order for reconsideration to even be

heard by the panel. There has to be a significant market decline or a change in

currency to be accepted.

That's

not going to be the case in every case. So there are some stipulations there

that doesn't allow that to happen, but yes, there will be a discussion amongst

all of the players. I see the hon. Member from the beautiful District of Cape

St. Francis smiling as well, because I guess he understands the system with

respect to this.

So the

ability for the panel to reach out to those that are involved will obviously be

there. You made a great point that if they're coming to the table as an

individual or as a non-majority, the other people that negotiated the deal as

well would want to know, and they would for sure.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers,

shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those in favour, 'aye.'

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

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

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Fishing

Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

I move, Madam Chair, the

Committee rise and report Bill 48.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 48.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

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

House.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

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

directed me to report Bill 48 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed her to report Bill 48 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

When shall the bill be read a

third time?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,

by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Order 3, third

reading of Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Deputy Government

House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour that Bill 48,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a

third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 2(a), a resolution relating to the advancing or

guaranteeing of certain loans made under

The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 ,

Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is the House do

now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider

the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

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 debating the related resolution and Bill 53.

Resolution

“That it

is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 , to provide for the advance of

loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or

loans advanced to certain corporations.”

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It gives

me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 53,

An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee

Act. On first digestion of this amendment, I was pleased to see that we, as a

House, are giving consent to extend the loan guarantee, but it kind of confused

me as to what the loan guarantee was for. In listening to my colleague across

the way from Stephenville - Port au Port, it didn't take me long to realize that

this loan guarantee is basically to cover the deficit that occurs on an annual

basis at this particular site of interest.

This is

a huge resource that we, as a province, never had to pay for to put in place. It

was largely put in place by the Americans. We haven't really capitalized on the

potential of that asset. From talking to people on the ground, there doesn't

seem like enough support going into the facility to overcome these deficits.

We have

to look at, as a government and as a Legislature, how can we support this

facility so that one day we can say, okay, there's no need for a loan guarantee

because you're able to pay your own bills; you're able to become sustainable. We

have to look at that at every entity that the government itself does provide a

loan guarantee because, ultimately, when we provide a loan guarantee, we are

shouldering that burden of loan onto the taxpayer and those who have voted for

us to represent them.

We've

seen some pretty alarming news coming out of the private sector today, and that

was the report by Captain Sid Hynes that the volume of import traffic is down by

15 per cent on Oceanex. While we could always say, oh yeah, maybe that's because

there's more product that we're producing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but

the commodities he highlighted are commodities that we don't produce. But they

are key economic indicators of how an economy is working; the consumable goods

like cars and ATVs and specialized construction products, and even products such

as raw lumber which, of course, we could be producing here ourselves, but that's

a story for a different day.

When we

see a business leader like Captain Sid Hynes coming out and saying, look, this

is a trend that has emerged this year that has never, ever been seen before; 15

per cent. You often see up and down 3 and 4 per cent as the ebbs and flows of

all economies, but when you see such a stalling of imported products that we

rely on to expand our economies, to get back and forth to work, that really

tells me that there's a big, big problem that is just now coming to surface.

While I

sympathize with the commentary back and forth about okay, well, there are a lot

of problems that have emerged out of our control such as world commodity prices

and the resulting lack of revenue, as leaders, we have to find ways that our

economy can survive through that. It's not an issue of us not having resources,

it's not an issue of us not having the energy to do it, because Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians have provided energy in all other jurisdictions around the

world to drive their economies forward, and a prime example of that is Fort

McMurray. Without Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that would not be the

boomtown that it is, and we have to be able to channel those energies back here

to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just to

speak to the construction materials, why is it that we have to import lumber?

Why is it that we have to import lumber when, at this very time in our history,

we're going to have one of the largest forest resources in the province, on the

Northern Peninsula, take perfectly good sawlogs that could be turned into

high-value lumber, we're going to turn them into one of the lowest possible

products of value, being wood pellets, and ship them across the ocean?

Why are

we doing that? Why aren't we going and concentrating on taking the valuable

sawlogs out of that resource and putting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

work, putting those sawlogs to creating further economies within our province?

That's a

challenge that we've always had, not just this administration, past

administrations have always been about big, wholesale announcements of the

exodus of our resources. Yes, it looks great in the paper and that looks great

on TV, but what actual economic activity does it create in the long run? Are we

maximizing the value of our resources? That's where we, as a province, need to

look.

We need

to make sure that every spoonful of mineral that comes out of the ground, every

cupful of oil, every tree that we harvest, every fish that pull out of the

water, we have to make sure and examine ways to increase that value so that we

as a province, we as a people, are getting that maximum value, especially in the

areas of non-renewable resources. Yes, it's great to increase production, but

basically all we are doing is we are pulling potential resource, potential

revenue, from our future generations and exhausting that non-renewable resource.

So, we need to kind of take a step back and look at how we can increase the

value of those resources, not how we can exhaust them quicker.

Back to

The Loan and Guarantee Act, in my industry – well, in industry that I like to

call my industry, being agriculture, only because I'm involved in it, not

because I own it, obviously – one element that we, as farmers, and

agriculturalists are missing is our own specified farm loan board. This did

exist years ago, but it was removed. In this time of the province's history

where we are trying to expand our agricultural industry, there's definitely a

facility there that's missing and that is access to short-term cash, to be able

to fund expansion, to be able to leverage to use against federal money or

provincial money through programs, because a lot of these programs now – and

this is especially compromising for new entrants, and one of the things is all

expenses have to be prepaid.

For

young farmers or small farmers, accessing that cash can really, over the short

term, compromise an operation's financial viability. With conventional lenders,

a lot of young farmers or new entrants wouldn't have the equity to put up to

borrow this money;

whereas a Newfoundland government-sponsored loans program

would be able to extend credit to young farmers or new farmers or new entrants.

Especially when we look at increasing the amount of immigrants that would be

interested in farming – because as we all know, a lot of the immigrants that are

coming to our country, they do come from farming backgrounds. But they lack the

capital and security to start their own farms. That is essential to any farm

development, you have to have access to capital, because farming is not such all

of a sudden you open your door and, boom, you got sales and business.

Farming

is a new – especially when you're talking raw land, you're talking at least four

to five years before you see any sort of profitable return on your investment.

We need patient working capital to be able to fund these new entrants, be they

immigrants or be they young people, or be they people who are looking to change

careers and contribute to our food supply.

That's

something that is definitely missing, and that is something that could be tied

into The Loan and Guarantee Act such that the provincial government guarantee

the loans of new entrants and of land development. Essentially in our province,

developing farmland is done on a provincial resource, a public resource.

Because, unlike other provinces, most farmland that's being developed is done on

agricultural Crown leases. Now, the lease does provide an extended tenure of 50

years, but technically it is still an asset of the province. So loaning money to

develop and improve the value of an asset of the province, that's kind of a

no-win situation – or, sorry, a win-win situation for me and for anybody

interested in agriculture and the people of the province.

closing, I would like to say that yes, it's encouraging to see that this getting

approval, and to the best of my knowledge we will be supporting this. But we

have to look at beyond loaning money. We have to look at improving how we manage

our resources and getting value out of them.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

happy to have the opportunity under the discussion around Bill 53 to speak this

morning. As has been point out, this is

An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee

Act and it has to do with the ongoing support of the Stephenville Airport and

the work of the Stephenville corporation by ensuring that government does

guarantee loans with regard to the Stephenville Airport.

obviously support this, and Members have spoken to it and spoken about the

Stephenville Airport and how important it is for the economy on the West Coast,

especially in the Stephenville area. Obviously, I support that, but I also,

today, have the opportunity – because this is what we classify a money bill – to

speak to other issues that are of concern in the province. So I do want to do

that today.

We have

so many issues, Mr. Chair, there are so many I could choose, but there's one

that is so ongoing and so pervasive, one that I keep hearing about from my own

constituents as well as people around the province, and it honestly eats at me.

That is the issue with regard to the long-term care of our seniors and those who

require long-term care. Sometimes it's people who have disabilities who aren't

seniors.

The

situation in our province is serious. We have a mixture. We have some small

entities in the province under the health authorities that are doing really good

work. They are using models that are newer models that aren't based on huge

facilities, huge buildings and they're doing very good work. But then we also

have, in the province, an ongoing mentality that maintaining huge facilities,

huge institutions is the way to go. Of course, the facility in Pleasantville is

one, and what's being built in Corner Brook is continuing that mentality as

well, and it's very concerning.

It's not

pleasant to hear some of the stories that I hear on a regular basis. I have to

think that other MHAs are getting these stories as well. Stories from families

talking about the experience of their loved ones in facilities of long-term

care. Stories that are horrendous. Stories that are happening not because the

workers inside of the facilities don't care about the residents or the people

they are caring for, but stories of situations that exist because we are not

putting adequate resources, number one, into some of these facilities; and,

number two, we're not even thinking about modelling facilities where people will

really receive personal care.

I feel

so helpless when I get a child – well, an adult child – who calls about their

parent and talks about finding their mother or their father sitting with a tray

in front of them, unable to serve themselves food, and a tray that has been left

there maybe for an hour-and-a-half or more, food now cold, and walking in and

finding their parent like that, or being there with their own parent and seeing

other people in the facility in that situation.

Talking

to a woman who went in to visit her aunt one day, and this was in the facility

in Pleasantville – went in to see her aunt who has Alzheimer's, to find her

sitting on the toilet with her – this is graphic but it's what's happening –

with a diaper down around her ankles, not knowing what to do. That woman is day

in and day out in a room with her door closed, nobody half the time knowing

what's happening to her. These are the kinds of stories that I hear and I know

other MHAs hear on a regular basis.

We are

warehousing – not in every situation. I said we do have some good situations

under our health authorities, but we do have awful situations where we are just

warehousing our senior citizens. I know many people are going to the new

Seniors' Advocate about this issue because they've told me they're going, and I

know the Seniors' Advocate has said publicly that this is the next issue that

she was turning her mind to, the issue of the care of our seniors who require

long-term care. We have got to start looking at this; one, from the issue of

having enough resources for people to be taken care of, but even from a fiscal

perspective.

If we

have more people employed and taking care of people the way they need to be

taken care of, we're also doing something that's good for the economy. It's part

of fiscal policy as well. I get concerned when I see governments discussing

social policy without connecting the social policy to economic policy, without

seeing – for example, look at child care – without seeing that having good child

care, public child care, that by having that we also build our economy.

I've

used this example before in the House, and my colleague has used this example

before in the House, it has been proven in Quebec by economists who have studied

the situation, that their child care program, by putting in place the child care

program that they have, which receives public funds, which is regulated by

government, that their economy just improved; improved so much because of having

child care. Number one, you had more people employed because their children were

able to go into a child care centre; and, number two, you had greater employment

within the industry itself, the industry of taking care of children.

It's a

fiscal reality that more people working means a better economy. So if we take

that and also put it into the situation of looking at what's happening to our

seniors, looking at what's happening in our long-term care facilities, it makes

absolute sense that by having more people employed, permanently employed, we are

going to have a stronger economy, and by having more people employed in our

long-term care facilities to really take care of people is also going to be

fiscally responsible; not just socially responsible, not just good that you

don't have senior citizens sitting and staring at a cold tray because they don't

know how to feed themselves, or not just because of the fact people are being

treated humanely, not just because we're taking care of them, but it's also

fiscally responsible. Because by having more people employed as personal care

workers, as nurses, in our long-term care facilities that is also going to help

our economy.

Also,

taking care of long-term care patients also helps the economy from the

perspective of they're not ending up in hospital, because that happens. Lots of

times they have to leave the long-term care facility and go to hospital because

they have developed an infection, for example. I've had examples of this as well

brought to me – developed an infection that wasn't even caught in the long-term

care facility until it was really too late and the person eventually dies. Why

was it not caught? Not because the workers don't care, not because – nobody

wants them to get an infection and die, but because there aren't enough people

to really monitor, to take care of and to monitor our senior citizens in these

long-term care facilities.

So it's

a major issue. It's an issue we have to start looking at and it's an issue I'm

really looking forward to hearing from the Seniors' Advocate, because she has

said publicly that this is an issue she's looking at. She has said she's looking

at it from a systemic perspective.

This is

not just an isolated case here and an isolated case there, and an isolated case

somewhere else. It's something that is happening because our system is not

structured to take care, really take care of our senior citizens who find

themselves, after years of being productive citizens, after years of being

people who did volunteer work in their communities, after all of those years of

giving to now be in situations where they are warehoused and not knowing from

day to day what their life is going to be like.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up again today and represent the beautiful District of

Cape St. Francis and the beautiful of people in the District of Cape St.

Francis.

First of

all, I want to do, I want to welcome my colleague here behind me from Topsail -

Paradise District. I want to welcome you to the House, and I'm sure you're going

to enjoy it here. It's nice to have you on our team and I'm sure you're going to

be a great asset to this side of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I had the opportunity to do a

bit of campaigning. I didn't know the gentleman very well beforehand, but

knocked on a lot of doors in his district, and the respect that the people had

for him was high and I guess expectations are high also. So you have big shoes

to fill. The former member was a good friend and a good colleague on this side

of the House also. So we're looking forward to you doing your work that you have

to do here in the House of Assembly.

This

bill today is a bill that I do believe that it's a guarantee that our government

brought in place in our time in government. I listened to the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port and he talked about the bill and the importance it

is to the area, especially around the Stephenville area. Again, I know it's

something that is important, that anything – that we keep an asset like that, to

make sure it does stay viable. It's important to that district, it's important

to the people in the area and it's important to the province.

I could

be corrected if the Member wants to, but I understand some of the runways in

that airport are the longest and can be for huge planes and whatnot. It's a

facility that can be used in times of crisis or in times of anything with the

length of the runways and stuff like that. So it's an important thing to have in

our province.

Any time

we do a loan guarantee for such facilities like this, it's always good. Now, the

Member for Mount Pearl North mentioned that we should be looking into what we

can do to make that facility more viable so that some day perhaps we won't need

to do this loan guarantee, and that's important.

I'm

sure, whether it's that side of the House or this side of the House, people have

looked into that to make sure that area is – anything that can be done, if

there's an industry or – I don't know, maybe it could be some flights that are

going to Europe or whatever that can land there and stuff like that. I'm sure

they are looking into that all the time, but it's important that we do this.

It's important that we support the people in the area and we support this

facility. I'm sure all Members on this side of the House will support this bill.

This

bill, being a money bill, gives up an opportunity to get up and have a few words

and talk about different things that we can talk about. Now, I wasn't going to

speak about long-term care until my colleague just got up and spoke about it,

because it's a big thing in my district, too. I went through it. It seems like

today, maybe it's just that people are – their health is a lot better, people

are living a lot longer than they did years ago.

Years

ago, if a person lived until they were 70 it was a good old age. Today, it seems

like it's 90, but as people live older – again, I went through it also, and I'm

sure the Minister of Health will agree with me, we're seeing a lot more people

with ailments like dementia and Alzheimer's. It's very, very difficult. It's so

difficult on families.

Families

try their best, no doubt about it. Some families maybe not, but most families

will do everything they can for their loved one. The person that brought them

into this world, the person that supported them, the person that fed them,

housed them and did everything over the years. So you have that sense of family

that people really want to do their best. But when you're dealing with people

that have dementia or Alzheimer's, it's very difficult, and I know it. I went

through it. I know it. The care that people need and what they actually receive

in some facilities – and I've heard the stories too. I've heard the stories

about people roaming and doing stuff.

The one

thing that anybody wants when they get at that age is for their dignity to be

kept. Now, sometimes they can't keep the dignity that they really want, but it's

important that people in these facilities and families do their best to make

sure the dignity of that person is kept. I agree with my colleague here on the

side of me, we really have to be concerned about it. It's something we should be

concerned about and it's important to families. I know right now a lot of people

that come to me with these concerns, they say we're after doing everything we

can.

What

you're seeing now, and I'm sure the Minister of Health can give us stats and

everything on it. There are a lot of people going to our health care with

different aliments, and the family can't take them home. The only thing the

family can do is leave them there until a bed becomes available. That has an

effect on our whole health care system. That has an effect on people who are

waiting for surgeries, people that need that bed.

understanding is, and I spoke to some social workers in the health care system,

it's a huge problem. I know at the Health Sciences it's a major problem. When we

look at people who are waiting in corridors on beds, waiting for surgeries, and

surgeries are being delayed because the bed is not available, because the bed is

taken up by somebody who's waiting to get in a long-term care facility.

So it's

something we really have to look at, and that's not this party, that party or

anything. It's something we should be looking at here as legislators to make

sure the dignity that people deserve, they get it. And that's what we need to

do.

We're

doing our best in some cases with the long-term care facility in Corner Brook,

and one is mentioned for Central Newfoundland, but in the St. John's area – I

know in my district there are a lot of people who are waiting to get in these

facilities, and it's so important that they do.

Again,

it's the effect that it's having on the whole health care system, and the effect

it's having on families. Because I tell you, it's very stressful when you're

dealing with parents, or a parent, or a loved one. It could be an aunt or an

uncle. It could be anyone, a family member that's going through this. What's

happening is that person may not have the know-all of what's happening to them,

but it's the person, it's the grandchildren, it's the sons, the daughters and

family members who have to watch them go through what they're going through.

We need

to do everything we can in this province to ensure that people with any kind –

especially our seniors. Our seniors paved the way for us. They paid the price in

a lot of different ways for every one of us who are here today, and we need to

ensure that their dignity is kept.

Whenever

I look at – and I talk about people with Alzheimer's or dementia or something

like that, it's the biggest thing. I know with my mom and dad it was – the one

thing that my mom always said to me, I want to keep my dignity. It's important

to them, it's important to our family and it's important to who we are.

So I

call upon government to do everything we can. It's very important that we, as a

society, respect the people that did so much for us. That's just my little spiel

on that. I didn't mean to get on it but when you mentioned it, it hit home and I

wanted to talk a little bit about it.

Now, I

only have a couple of minutes left but I really want – and I know in this

session, it's a great session for us. We'll get an opportunity to get up and

speak on a lot of different occasions – anytime there's a money bill. We'll have

the budget and we'll have Interim Supply and we can speak on the Throne Speech

and whatnot, but I really want to just say something this morning, and I only

got a couple of minutes left. I want to talk a little bit about our economy.

I'm

dealing a lot of times with people in my district, and they're tradespeople.

It's amazing; I spoke to a young guy who is a plumber. He's a plumber six or

seven years now, and it's the first time, with this company he's been working

with, that he's laid off.

I know

government is coming up – the Minister of Finance gets up and says we're on the

right path. We're doing this right, we're doing that right, but you got to get

out of that bubble and go and talk to the people that are out on the ground.

Talk to our electricians, talk to our plumbers, talk to our tradespeople. It's

not going as good as you're saying and telling people that it is. It's just not.

I want it to go; I want our economy to thrive. I want people to be working,

because that's good for everybody. It's good for everybody in this province, but

we got to look at what's happening.

Every

indicator, except for the GDP, is going this way. We need to get the government

to realize it is and we need to make changes. My biggest thing, and this is what

I've said here the last couple of years, it's the affordability for people to be

able to live; it's the affordability for people to be able to live in this

province. That's why people are leaving. That's why people are finding it hard

to do renovations or build new homes or do what they got to do to make sure,

it's because they can't afford to do it.

We need

to find ways to make sure that people in this province have the money because,

listen, once things happen, everything is a snowball effect. If people got money

they spend money. We'll see stores being able to expand and hire people. That

puts more money in our economy.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Boy, oh, boy, what you

haven't got to listen to on a Wednesday morning.

I mean

the doom and gloom that comes from the PC Party who takes no, takes no –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

Heckling now. I gave you the

pleasure of getting up and speaking for 10 minutes, you won't do the same for

me. No respect whatsoever.

The PC

Party will take no blame for the previous 12 years that got us in the mess that

we're in today. We actually have the province back on track, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Twelve years of making a mess

and there's not enough Bounty paper towels in the province to clean it up. It's

absolutely disgraceful when they get up and blame our government for the mess

they left us, Mr. Chair. It's ridiculous, it's shameful.

Just

imagine, Mr. Chair, you're the Premier of the province, you take over government

on the 14th of December, 2015, meet with the Department of Finance, they tell

you you're not going to be able to pay all your public servants, two weeks

before Christmas.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible) four years later.

MR. KING:

Just imagine that – chirping

over there. If the Member for CBS wants to get up and speak, he can get up and

speak after me. Over there chirping and all that. That's all he does. He's got

no answers for anything.

This

crowd over there are breaking out the Chicken Little syndrome with their leader.

The sky is falling on everything, everything's bad, everything's doom and gloom,

which is not the case.

We've

got the province back on track, Mr. Chair. We are back on track. We took a

$2.7-billion deficit that they left us and we have it down below $700 million

this year, and we're going to be back to surplus in 2022. That's the Liberal

plan, that's The Way Forward . We've

created jobs all across the province through our Cabinet Committee on Jobs.

The

agriculture sector, the aquaculture sector, the tech sector, high paying jobs

throughout the province. The mining sector, oil and gas, community sector. Where

was their plan during their 12 years in power? They put all their eggs in one

basket, Mr. Chair, in oil and gas; lived high on the hog at $110 a barrel.

Created the biggest boondoggle in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Muskrat Falls – and I'll talk more about that this afternoon when I get speaking

– and then left us on the hook for it.

Then

they bring out doom and gloom. We've lost the jump in our step. Oh, people can't

afford this, afford that. That's your legacy. We are committed to not

increasing, doubling power rates. We are committed to not putting the burden on

the taxpayers of this province.

Where is

the plan of the PC Party, Mr. Chair? Where is it? They don't have one. They

don't have a plan. They get on the media and talk about lawyers speak for

contracts. If you don't use this word or you're going to use another word it's

going to make a big difference, to distract from the real issue that they got us

in a mess – that we're trying to clean up and trying to get the best deal we can

in the Atlantic Accord.

Where's

their plan for the Atlantic Accord? To get up in Question Period every day and

criticize. What did Danny Williams get us? He got us $2 billion – we got it,

b'ys, we got it. Do you know what it was? It was like me going up to get an

advance on my paycheque.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Bank of Montreal.

MR. KING:

Yeah. It'd be like me going

to get an advance on my paycheque. So I go to them and say, well, you know what,

can you give me my paycheque for my next two pay periods? You don't have to pay

me those, but I want to get them now so I can go down and walk over the steps of

the St. John's Airport: b'y, I got 'er. I got 'er. I got $2 billion.

That

money was supposed to be allocated to Newfoundland and Labrador in the year 2015

and '16, when we certainly could've used the money, but he had to have a glamour

shot. We got 'er, boys, we're going to tear down the flags, tear down the flags

out in front of Confederation Building. It'd turn your stomach, Mr. Chair, the

way they gets on.

Mr.

Chair, they have no plan whatsoever. This is what they're doing now. They won't

tell us what they're doing. They get on and criticize: oh, we've lost our step.

Oh, people can't afford this, people can't afford that. Mismanagement – tell us

about Muskrat Falls.

MR. LESTER:

(Inaudible) four years now.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

Oh, look, the Member for

Mount Pearl North wants to get up and speak. He wasn't here, so he can't be held

culpable, I guess. That's their attitude, but they will not tell us what their

plan is to get things back on track.

We have

a plan called The Way Forward and it's

working, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Humber Valley Paving.

MR. KING:

That's another thing, yeah,

Humber Valley Paving. How'd that work out for us? Nineteen million dollars going

to the half a premier that they had over there. Not even a full premier; got

caught with his hands in the pocket and he couldn't serve. That's the PC legacy.

This is the stuff they get on with, and they make out they're so great.

Mr.

Chair, there are a lot of good things going on. Just take, for example, the

District of Bonavista. We have an agriculture industry which is growing. We have

young farmers getting into the industry. We have businesses popping up

throughout the year, operating year-round, shipping all over the world. Things

are booming.

We have

a forestry sector. We have Sexton Lumber who is the largest producer in the

province of lumber products. That's a success for you. He's investing in his

business. So the doom and gloom that the PCs pretend that's going on in the

province, it's absolutely ridiculous.

The

tourism industry is growing; growing in the District of Bonavista and throughout

the province. We haven't seen as many people.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Twenty-eight hundred

businesses.

MR. KING:

Twenty-eight hundred

businesses, according to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation that have started here. It is absolutely amazing.

You're

seeing tens of thousands more people visit the District of Bonavista every year

because it's the place to be, because people are out there working hard. The

people who the PCs say are non-existent are actually in the District of

Bonavista – the people who are eager to get this province back on track, people

who are investing in this province, the people who are creating jobs. That's

what's happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You look

at PAL Aerospace; they just had a big contract the other day creating more jobs,

because we helped them invest –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Two-hundred-plus jobs.

MR. KING:

Two-hundred-plus jobs –

high-paying jobs. The tech sector – when we had the Cabinet Committee on Jobs, I

was at that launch last year and it was a room full of young people energetic

and excited about our province.

AN HON. MEMBER:

And Verafin.

MR. KING:

And Verafin, another 300

jobs.

Mr.

Chair, those are the success stories that we can talk about in this province.

The doom and gloom is not like they say it is. The polls show it today. There's

higher confidence in our government than any time in the past 3½ years. Now,

they'll come out and spin about polls and all that. That they don't matter, they

don't count, and it's a snapshot in time. People are showing more confidence in

this government.

So, Mr.

Chair, when they get on with their doom and gloom like they always do, I'm only

telling the people out there when you go around like Chicken Little and cry

wolf, that only goes so far. You heard the fables though the years; people stop

listening to you after a while. So, give us your platform. What do you stand

for? We know what we stand for in the Liberal Party:

The Way Forward document. That's what we stand for, and it's

working.

You had

yesterday talking about immigrants, how numbers were down. We haven't seen as

good immigration numbers. It went up by 25 per cent in 2017 and 25 per cent last

year. Where was the PC plan for immigration? They gutted it. We had to take 3½

years to build back up the infrastructure that was gutted by the PCs.

If it

wasn't oil and gas, they didn't care about it. We've diversified the economy

here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm proud of the work that we've done. I said

early on I'd stand on my record every day of the week and twice on Sunday

several years ago, and I stand on that record again today because we are moving

forward. We are putting this province back on track. Mr. Chair, I'm proud to be

part of the Liberal government who has done it.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

What an

honour to be able to stand in this House to represent all of the people in our

constituencies, all of the people in our province. I'm somewhat appalled – and I

don't use that word often, Mr. Chair – but I really am somewhat appalled by the

previous speaker, the Member for Bonavista. He said that my colleagues in the

Official Opposition, the PCs, were talking doom and gloom. And then, my

colleague from our caucus here, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi was

telling the story – the story of people's lives. These are not abstract stories.

colleague from Cape St. Francis was talking about his own mother and how she

begged before she died that she would be able to that with dignity. We are here

to represent businesses, we are here to represent the affluent, and we are here

to represent those who are having a really hard time. And let us not forget

there are so many people –there are so many people – having a hard time.

None of

us in this House have to worry about whether we decide to have healthy food or

heat – none of us. We're paid well. We have safe places to live. We have

transportation that is reliable. We don't have to worry about our children,

whether or not they can afford education. We don't have to worry about whether

our aging parents will have enough to live on, or whether they'll have a safe

place to live.

Let's

talk about seniors in our communities who are living on OAS and GIS, because

there are a lot of them. We have the highest percentage of seniors in the

country – the highest percentage of seniors in the country – living on OAS and

GIS. That means they live on approximately $1,100 a month. I've told this story

a few times in the House and it is my hope that the Member for Bonavista will

listen to this. This is the story of people's lives. These are the stories of

the realities of people's lives.

So, how

many seniors have I visited? These are not doom-and-gloom stories; this is

reality. These are also the people that we are responsible for. These are also

the people who we have to keep in mind when we make decisions. These are also

the people who vote for us and say I need you to represent me.

How many

times have I visited seniors in my riding, in my district, where they pull out

the envelope that their cheques came in and every month they do the same thing:

They look at how much their income is, and then they write down their expenses?

They keep writing it down every month, thinking that maybe something might

change, and the only thing that does change is their cost of living. Their

expenses go up.

So, they

write down rent. Because in order to have a safe place, a most modest place,

it's at least – in my district – $800 a month. Then they write down heat and

light, and that's $200 a month. Then they write down phone and cable and they

decide, can I do without that, and they write that down. Their income is about

$1,100 a month. Already, rent, heat and light and phone come to $1,100 a month.

There is no money for food, there's no money for transportation, and there is no

money for teeth because this government cancelled the Adult Dental Program.

There is

no money for teeth. Is this what we have come to in our province? I don't think

so and I don't think that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to

make policies that mean that our seniors cannot afford teeth. Is that really

what we have come to? And yes, there's been some really good work done, and yes

we can celebrate, we can absolutely celebrate some of the work in the high-tech

industry. We can celebrate what's happening in Bonavista, and that is happening

in spite of government. That is happening because of champions in their own

community and now government is possibly catching up on that. And that is good

thing too.

So, we

can celebrate some of the things that are happening in

The Way Forward document, sure we can –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

– but we can also point out

that there are many, many, many people in our province who are suffering. And

that's not doom and gloom; that is the reality.

The

Member for Labrador West, he's throwing up his hands and saying oh yeah, oh

yeah. Well, let's not forget the number of workers in his district that lost

their jobs when the mine closed down and they lost their homes. That's also a

reality, and those are also people.

MR. LETTO:

The mine is up and running

again.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

The mine is up and running

again, but let's not forget –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, the mine is up and

running again and that is a good thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

That is a good thing, but it

is government's role when the mines close –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

When people cannot afford

houses, when they lose their houses and they can't afford groceries that is

government's role to say: What can we do to help? And it's a good thing, and

this government can take credit for the mine opening again. I'll give them that,

but let's not forget when we have to raise issues that affect the lives of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know

the Gathering Place is bursting at the seams with people who are homeless, with

people who can't afford bus passes, people can't afford food and they can't

afford heat. That is a reality, and this is a reality of some of our boom and

bust economy. This is the reality of the fact that we had such a broken mental

health and addiction system, and we're seeing the transformation of that. But

that's because of the work that many advocates did in the province and also the

work of all of us working together in the All-Party Committee on Mental Health

and Addictions.

Mr.

Chair, I spent my Christmas Day serving dinner to people, who the folks on the

other side are doom and gloom. People who didn't have turkey, and I heard

stories of people saying: I can't afford tea.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

I can't afford tea. People

who are saying they can't get around because they can't afford a bus pass

because their income support – these are people who haven't got jobs, and maybe

people who will not be able to work in paid employment, who are saying they

can't afford a good place to live. They can't afford healthy nutritious food.

They cannot afford tea. They can't afford bus passes, which means they're

socially isolated. They can't even get around to the food banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Members that the noise is out of order.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, I don't know why

government's being so defensive like this and hostile. The thing is, this is the

reality we're facing in our province.

CHAIR:

I'm reminding all hon.

Members, the noise level is out of order.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, absolutely.

This is

a reality of many people in our province. And the thing is, it's growing. We

know we have over double the unemployment rate in the country here in our

province. We do have that.

So the

issues we are facing, the issues of increasing poverty are a reality and they're

growing. We have to do something about it, and we have to talk about it. To

ignore it and not talk about it means we are not doing the duty we have all been

elected for, to ensure that no one is left behind.

I will

be the first one, Mr. Chair, to celebrate the successes that we do see, but we

cannot say to talk about the issues, the life stories of people, is politicizing

doom and gloom. We cannot say that. We have to say, what can we do to work

together to alleviate the suffering that many of our people are experiencing?

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me

take us back, and I'll just take a few moments to do so.

Mr.

Chair, today we are debating Bill 53,

An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee

Act. This bill is vital to the importance of Stephenville Airport.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FINN:

Mr. Chair, this bill will

guarantee a $900,000 loan guarantee to the Stephenville Airport Corporation. For

40 minutes we just sat in this Legislature and the PC Members and the NDP

Members chose not to speak to the significance and the importance of this piece

of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FINN:

Mr. Chair, I can tell you, I

have been a tireless advocate for Stephenville Airport. Its significance to the

Southwest Coast, to the region of the West Coast and to the entire province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. FINN:

– given its position, its

location –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. FINN:

– its use of alternate sites

CHAIR:

Order, please!

recognize the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I would

like to point out to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, that in

speaking to the bill I supported the loan and guarantee bill. I supported the

money supporting the Stephenville –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

There is

no point of order.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will

not belabour the subject. This bill is extremely important. I recognize that

Members have the opportunity to speak to things that they wish that are

pertaining and relevant to their district. Mr. Chair, they'll have that

opportunity come Interim Supply.

Today is

Bill 53. This is about Stephenville Airport. For 40 minutes we had to listen to

our Opposition Members with no support, no acknowledgement of the significance

of this piece of infrastructure.

Mr.

Chair, again –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. FINN:

– I will reiterate its

importance. I have worked tirelessly with our Minister of Finance –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. FINN:

– with our Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi on a point of

order.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I would

like you to bring to the attention of the Member that Bill 53,

An Act to Amend

the Loan And Guarantee Act, is what we call a money bill, and we confirmed that

before we got into the discussion, and he has not recognized it as a money bill,

and it is.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

certainly appreciate the words from the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

I do recognize that Bill 53 is pertaining to the finances relating to this

province. Again, I am merely pointing out the relevance of this. Regardless of

which you wish to speak about, this bill is important to the Town of

Stephenville, to the entire West Coast, to the entire southwest coast, and to

the entire province, and I wanted to make that point very clear, and I believe

I've done that.

With

that, I will ask that we adjourn debate for this afternoon.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

I move

that we rise and report progress on Bill 53 and related resolution.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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 Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the

Whole on Ways and Means.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means have considered the

matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have made

progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole on Ways and Means reports that the Committee have made progress and

ask leave to sit again.

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, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

Considering the hour of the day, I suggest the House recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House stands in recess

until 2 p.m.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

First of

all, I'd like to welcome everyone back for this afternoon's session. Also, I'd

like to compliment the MHAs in this Legislature for participating in the Moose

Hide Campaign.

For

those watching at home, we started with breakfast this morning and then we

gathered here on the floor and we had Inuk elder, Emma Reelis, present the

Members with a moose hide pin, so we are fasting for the rest of the day.

Hopefully, everybody is in a nice, good mood and looking forward to supper. But

I'd like to thank all my colleagues for participating in this very important

stand against the issue of violence against women and children.

We have

some great representatives today from the town council of Port aux Basques. We

have the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Todd Strickland, Councillor Melvin Keeping,

Councillor Jim Lane and Town Manager Leon MacIsaac.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the Members representing the Districts of Cape St.

Francis, Humber - Bay of Islands, Stephenville - Port au Port and Mount Pearl –

Southlands, starting with the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate a young student from my district,

Brooklynn Nichols from Pouch Cove. Brooklynn is a grade four student

Mrs. Collins's class at Cape St. Francis Elementary.

For the past 14 years, Heritage Newfoundland has

sponsored a poster contest, highlighting heritage places in our province.

Students from grades K to 12 are to create a poster to show why the local

heritage is important to them. This year, Brooklynn was the Overall and

Elementary Winner. Her poster was of a boat launch in Pouch Cove, which has been

photographed and painted many times. I have to say that Brooklynn's version was

one of the nicest I've ever seen.

As a winner, Brooklynn received an iPad and her school

received $500. I am sure that her family and friends are very proud of her. She

has an obvious love for her community in which she's growing up in.

I ask all hon. Members to join with me in

congratulating Brooklynn Nichols for winning this year's heritage week poster

contest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR.

JOYCE:

Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday, February 28, 2019, the music scene in Corner Brook lost a

vibrant, talented member of the community as Ed Best passed away at age 61.

Ed came from a background of music and his late father,

Cleve Best, was well known throughout the area and the two often performed

together for many years. Ed was passionate about music, whether he was playing

in clubs or sharing his music at fundraising events to help people less

fortunate and in need, or just jamming with a few of his buddies.

Most recently, Ed was concerned about others with

cardiac care conditions, and true to his personality, he became a strong

advocate for better cardiac care in Corner Brook, wanting to make sure that

those people in worse situations than him would be looked after. This is the Ed

Best that I always knew and when someone was in need, would always rise to the

occasion. Ed's memory will be carried on through his family and those whose

lives he touched.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join with me in

extending our deepest sympathies to Ed's wife, Linda; his children, Christa,

Shannon, Sara and Stephanie; his six grandchildren; and to his many friends and

fellow entertainers.

The music in heaven today just got a bit better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to

acknowledge one of the newest inductees into the National Academy of Canada's

Outstanding Principals. On January 29, 30 principals from across the country

were chosen by a National Selection Committee to be named one of Canada's

Outstanding Principals.

The only

Newfoundland and Labrador recipient of this award this year is Mr. Gerald Morgan

of Stephenville Primary school. He will now join the ranks of over 500

administrators who have received this honour since its inception 15 years ago.

Stephenville Primary is a K-3 school with 330 students, and while it is an

exceptional extracurricular programming. Mr. Morgan has been an administrator in

Stephenville for 28 of his 29 years in the education system.

In a

recent visit to Stephenville Primary School and in conversation with Mr. Morgan,

I can tell you he is truly one humble individual. When asked his thoughts about

the award, he immediately acknowledged and credited this prestigious achievement

as a testament to the team effort from his tremendous staff and students at

Stephenville Primary, as well as the community as a whole.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Mr. Gerald Morgan, one

of Canada's most outstanding principals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Royal

Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 284 Marconi was formed in September 1981 with three

officers and 30 cadets. Since that time, the corps has had a total of 15

Commanding Officers, has trained hundreds of cadets at its local headquarters in

Mount Pearl, and has produced a significant number of top National Sea Cadet

Award winners. This cadet corps prides itself on its community involvement,

participating in several parades and events and volunteering with the Knights of

Columbus, First United Church, community cleanups, food drives and other

worthwhile charitable causes throughout the year.

This

past fall, 284 Marconi was named top Sea Cadet corps for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking 284 Marconi for their tremendous

contribution to the community and congratulate all members of this wonderful

organization on this latest honour, including cadets: Daniel Keats, Rebecca

Keats, Tristian King, Claudia Matchem, Brody Brenton, Jodee Morrison, Donil

Nolan, Quinn Parsons, Edward Vokey, Caleb Connors, Dominic Krone, Nathan Pearce,

Logan Pike, Ryam Ricard, Nicholas Smith, Daniel Stokes, Cole Taylor-Lewis,

Marcus Young, Rickey Bennett, Kietan Cross and Thomas FitzPatrick; Officers:

Kevin Martin, Anthony Lewis, Jenelle Carter, Zack Leshane, Barry Sullivan,

Andrew Spearns, Jennifer White and Lisa Penney, as well as civilian helpers and

instructors: Hope Matchem, Eileen Parsons, Mike Parsons and Alden Spencer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of Team Newfoundland and

Labrador at the 2019 Canada Winter Games.

Congratulations to gold medallist Melanie Taylor of Conception Bay South, who

shone in Special Olympics Level 2 figure skating and was named closing

ceremonies flag bearer for Team Newfoundland and Labrador. Congratulations also

to Emma Mullett of St. John's on her bronze medal in judo.

Mr.

Speaker, the road to the Games provides a tremendous experience through training

and competing at the elite level. A number of our athletes and teams achieved

personal best and achieved the goals they had set for themselves at the Games.

For example, our women's artistic gymnastics team finished first among teams

from Atlantic Canada for the first time. Also, our men's curling team finished

4th overall, losing by a single point in the bronze medal game.

I also

congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador mission staff team, who received the

Claude Hardy Award for the second consecutive Canada Winter Games. This award is

presented to the mission team that best exhibits leadership, co-operation,

integrity and the spirit of the Games.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to witness many of these athletes and other team

members in action in Red Deer and I commend them for their commitment and

dedication.

Our

government is pleased to continue its support for amateur athletes. In 2018-19,

we committed over $6 million to support and advance sport, recreation and

physical activity initiatives.

Please

join me in congratulating all of our athletes, as well as coaches, managers,

administrators, volunteers and parents who do so much to ensure our youth have

opportunities to represent Newfoundland and Labrador at this level, including at

the 2019 Canada Winter Games.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite for an advance copy of her statement. We, on this side of

the House, join the opposite Members in congratulating the 2019 Team

Newfoundland and Labrador. As has been said, the Canada Winter Games provides

tremendous opportunity for our athletes to showcase their leadership and their

spirit of competition.

The

Canada Games is the culmination of often many years of training, many years of

effort by coaches, managers, administrators, volunteers, officials and

especially the parents, who help support and guide their athletes along the

journey. A special congratulations to the medal winners, Melanie Taylor and Emma

Mullett, who won gold and bronze respectively.

Mr.

Speaker, our province is continuing to make our mark in competitive gymnastics,

finishing first among the teams in Atlantic Canada for the very first time, as

stated by the Member opposite. Our men's curling was another highlight. Again,

just finishing outside the medal round. Very special thanks to our mission staff

who won the Claude Hardy Award for the second consecutive time, as again noted,

and thanks to the mission staff, thanks to the volunteers.

I have

one last thing: I had the opportunity to recently play basketball, wheelchair

basketball last month with wheelchair athlete Cassandra McGrath, and let me tell

you, it's not easy.

So thank

you, and congratulations to the team.

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. It's a pleasure to congratulate

Melanie, Emma and all the athletes who represented our province at the 2019

Canada Winter Games.

I'm also

really pleased to join with the minister and my colleague in congratulating all

the staff, volunteers and especially family members who helped our athletes

shine on the national stage. As has been pointed out, they represented our

province well, and I congratulate our mission staff on winning the Claude Hardy

Award for the second consecutive year. It doesn't surprise me, knowing our

culture here in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

You got it.

Thank

you much, Mr. Speaker.

Our wild

Atlantic salmon resource in Newfoundland and Labrador is a shared heritage that

we should protect, promote and all be very proud of. The greatest salmon

conservationists in the entire world are the 30,000 fly fishermen from this

province who are the true stewards of this resource, along with all the many

other people and communities that are directly connected to our salmon rivers.

The

proof of this profound statement is found in the fact that over half of all wild

Atlantic salmon produced anywhere on the entire continent of North America are

produced in one place: Newfoundland and Labrador.

To make

this point better understood and to celebrate our shared heritage, your

government is joining with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization,

NASCO, to celebrate the international year of the salmon.

Recently, I joined young, enthusiastic salmon conservationists from Roncalli

Elementary at the Fluvarium to kick off a full year of events. This inclu