PDF Version

November 18, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 90

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon, in the Speaker's gallery, I'd like to welcome Allison Jones who will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement.

Welcome, Allison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands, Placentia - St. Mary's, Placentia West - Bellevue and Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, in the early hours of November 25, 2021, David Coffey was driving from his parents' home in Cuslett to work in Argentia when he noticed a light in the middle of a pond just outside Point Verde. He stopped to investigate and heard a muffled sound like a horn under the water.

Realizing that someone was in a vehicle that was submerging quickly, he called 911 and jumped into the cold water. The truck had not totally sunk by the time he got to it. He was able to help a man out through a window and onto the side of the truck. He then swam back to shore and flagged down an oncoming vehicle. That driver had rope in his vehicle and together they used the rope to pull the man safely to shore and into the care of the paramedics. David then dried his clothes and went on to work. The man who was in the truck recovered.

On October 24 of this year, David Coffey was awarded the Governor General's Medal of Bravery for a courageous rescue outside Point Verde three years ago.

Join me as I honour David Coffey for this act of bravery.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I stand in this hon. house to recognize the Quilts of Valour Sew Day that took place at St. Gabriel's Hall in Marystown located in our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

On Saturday, September 21, I had the privilege of joining the Little Bay Heritage Centre Quilters in collaboration with Quilts of Valour Canada. Sewers, veterans and their families from the Burin Peninsula joined together to sew a block or two that would be used to make quilts for ill or injured Canadian Arm Forces members and veterans to show appreciation for their service.

Quilt tops were made along with three quilts that were presented to veterans John Strang, Iris Ducey and Richard Richie from the Burin Peninsula thanking them for their service.

To our veterans that received their Quilt of Valour, I thank you and your families for your service. We are all grateful and hope you all feel the love as your wrap yourself in your Quilt of Valour.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to please join me recognizing these amazing groups for coming together to show appreciation and thanks to our veterans.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating a young lady in my District of Mount Pearl North.

Allison Jones made history as the first ever delegate from our province to compete in the Miss Canada Earth pageant. In July, this year, she travelled to BC where she was selected as the second runner up.

Allison is a wonderful representative of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As part of this title, she has committed to advocate with several important causes right here in her home community in Mount Pearl. Her advocacy highlights the cruelty issue of stray animals, encouraging people to adopt them and support, and also support for the 2SLGBTQ1A+ community.

Allison's dedication to these causes reflects her dedication to our community. We are proud to have her representing our province on the national stage.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Allison and wish her well on her life journey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 25 as the launch of the Purple Ribbon Campaign and the 16 Days of Activism to end gender-based violence.

This year's theme, Come Together, Act Now, emphasizes the role for everyone, including men and boys, in changing social norms, attitudes and behaviours that contribute to gender-based violence.

The campaign also invites us to use our voices and actions to help create a safer, more equitable Newfoundland and Labrador, free from violence, discrimination and fear.

Last December, we announced a bilateral agreement with the federal government that is seeing an investment of nearly $13.6 million over four years to support provincially tailored National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence initiatives.

Our government's violence prevention efforts are grounded in multi-departmental and community partnerships focused on finding long-term solutions to gender-based violence.

We have formed the Provincial Indigenous Women's Reconciliation Council where we are making strides to prevent violence while creating a path forward toward justice, healing and reconciliation.

We are also committed to establishing a ministerial-level committee to end gender-based violence. This work is in the very early stages and we look forward to working with our community partners.

I invite all Members of this House to join me at the Confederation Building on November 25, where we will honour the many women, girls and gender-diverse individuals who have lost their lives due to gender-based violence.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Speaker, I rise today to join in recognizing November 25 as the launch of the Purple Ribbon Campaign and the 16 Days of Activism to end gender-based violence. The theme, Come Together, Act Now, is an important call for everyone to work together to bring about real change and eliminate gender-based violence.

Intimate partner violence is continuing to increase in this province. Although these ribbon cuttings and themes are necessary, without a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, they are meaningless.

In addition to prioritizing a plan, the government needs also to prioritize action. Victims of gender-based violence should be honoured with concrete steps to find solutions to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. By continuing to prioritize this, we can hopefully build a safer and more inclusive future for women and gender-diverse individuals.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and join in recognizing the launch of the Purple Ribbon Campaign.

Although we commend these efforts, we believe that this government should do more to end gender-based violence. Last week, we debated legislation that came from a recommendation of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission dealing with impersonating police officers.

We ask government to take a second look at the report and begin to work on its recommendations dealing with intimate partner abuse and gender-based violence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, this whole land fiasco of Kenmount Crossing started with a phone call. The Premier has said he didn't make the call. The minister has said he didn't make the call.

I ask the Premier: Did someone in the Premier's office speak directly with the developer?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge, no one spoke directly to the developer, Mr. Speaker. We've been compliant with all the legislative processes in place and consistent with how land has been used for major infrastructure projects in the past for decades within the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: It continues, Mr. Speaker, to surprise us that nobody made a call, nobody answered the call, yet the call was made and a call was definitely received.

Premier, when you made the new site announcements for St. Clare's, did you know at the time that you needed 10 acres more of land than what you announced, and why didn't you tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We announced a campus-style hospital that would involve more than 10 acres of land, Mr. Speaker. We were happy to answer questions at the time. We made a comment that a parcel of the land was donated, but there would need to be more to accommodate such a large footprint.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it was almost immediately after, the next day, that he talked about the need to purchase the additional acres at a cost of $23 million. Surely, it was known at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, in August of 2024, three months earlier, the Liberal government issued an RFP for the design services for a sport and well-being dome, indicating that this dome was to be built at Kenmount Crossing.

I ask the Premier: Do you currently own this site?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question.

That RFP is currently working through the process and when we get final decisions made on it, we will inform the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the actual release that went out from the department said exactly where it's to be located, off Captain Prim Drive and Kenmount Crossing.

Again, I ask the minister: Do you own the land?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, the RFP for that dome is still out into the public domain and we are working on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, they turned around and clearly stated where this dome is to be located. How can you do that if you don't know that you own the land or not?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secret about it. We are continuing the RFP process to look at it and if we move forward with the plan to develop it and build it, we will purchase the land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Let me rephrase the question: Why did you state in your documents that this dome had to be built on Kenmount Crossing?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, it is because it's part of the larger plan at Kenmount Crossing. As we proceed with the plan to build the new acute-care facility at Kenmount Crossing, which is a great opportunity for the province to unlock problems and to fix problems with transportation and infrastructure in the area, it will be part of a larger campus. It's part of a larger parcel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Premier, as they say, clear as mud – clear as mud. That's exactly what's happening here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: On November 4, the Liberal government announced a 10-acre donation of a parcel of land for the new St. Clare's. It turns out it was 55 acres, at a cost of $23 million. Now, the fix is in, they've been after this land since August apparently, when the turf dome was announced.

Why are you hiding the details from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, we're not hiding anything at all. We are developing a new health care strategy for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

F. HUTTON: Part of it will include a health care dome, as the larger parcel is acquired, once the final agreement is signed and we build that hospital, which is on the border of Paradise, St. John's and Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, let me rephrase it again: The government issues an RFP, dictating that the turf dome was to be built on Kenmount Crossing, but they didn't own the land.

Can the minister say or confirm that you don't own the land that you dictated that this turf dome be built on?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we do not own the land yet. But we will, as it's going to be part of the larger parcel to develop the new acute-care facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, that tells a lot about the poor planning that has gone in, and the announcement – the misleading of this government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: But, Speaker, let me tell you about another example of mismanagement brought to you by the Liberal government. The minister boasted to The New York Times that the province's website, in small print on Barrow's jerseys, received 58,000 hits a day. Wrong.

Premier, even after an $8-million contract to m5 advertising, how did the Premier's government get this so wrong?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member for the question.

I assure this House that no one was as disappointed as I was when I understood that the information that I was provided by our agency was incorrect, Speaker.

I do want to talk about how successful our immigration efforts have been, though, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: Since we've started our UK immigration efforts this August, we've over 900 serious leads with individuals wanting to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we've had 100 one-on-one interviews with people in key sectors including health care, early childhood education and construction who want to immigrate to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, let's deal with another fact. Isn't it true, Minister, that the website traffic during and after the Barrow game actually went down relative to the week before the big game, showing how ineffective the jersey ads really were?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about our immigration. We need people to think about Newfoundland and Labrador when they leave the UK. This year, we have a targeted effort to get people to come from the UK to Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of the UK's changing immigration rules, we believe they want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. STOODLEY: Speaker, I'm very sorry; it's very difficult to speak when Opposition are chirping. I'd be happy to answer lots of questions about our immigration policies.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it doesn't bode well for immigration stats, that's for sure, when we are going to depend on a jersey to increase our people recruiting from England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that this government announced that they had built 750 new homes, and in fact it was 11. The Liberals say they had 58,000 hits a day; it's only 700. They said the land was a 10-acre donation when it was actually 55 acres that had to be purchased at a cost of $23 million.

I ask the Premier: When will your government stop misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and tell us the facts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Are Members ready?

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to speak to the

preamble; I think it is extremely important. The Barrow initiative that we undertook this year, the sponsorship, was less than 4 per cent of our total advertising budget over two years. We advertise to make sure the people looking to move, know that they need to come to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, we use our 3,050 economic immigration spaces extremely wisely. So far this year, we've nominated over 600 health care workers for immigration to Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. STOODLEY: – including 212 nurses. We also have 48 early childhood educators and 126 residential construction workers, Speaker.

We're very proud. We have to get as many people as possible to think about moving to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, 750 new homes: actual number, 11; 58,000 hits a day: actual number, 700; 10 acres of land donated, free: actually, 55 acres at a cost of $23 million.

Again, I ask the Premier: When will you stop misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Member for the question.

We continue to develop a hospital to meet the modern needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a perfect location that has the added benefit of having road infrastructure that is much needed for the people of Paradise, the people of Mount Pearl, the people of CBS and the people of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to ensure that we are developing this hospital to meet the needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: I'll tell you where the Members opposite have a short memory though, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me about misleading the public. We could do a lot more in terms of numbers, but if they want to spit out numbers, how about $500 million a year toward rate mitigation. That is an accurate number –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, people deserve better than this Liberal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We will do better.

Speaker, I say to the Premier, the Nurses' Union said on Friday that they were troubled by disparaging remarks made toward nurse practitioners in the House of Assembly by a Liberal Member.

Has the Premier spoken to his caucus about this concern and will the Liberal Member who made these troubling remarks stand in the House and apologize?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Absolutely. I'm very proud to stand on my feet here in this House of Assembly and to let the Member opposite know I spoke to the president of the union before I came to the House of Assembly and she appreciated the call.

Yes, I have talked to the Premier of this province and I'm going to tell you one thing: There was no poor NPs that was said, it was more – and that came from me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. LOVELESS: You asked the question. If you want the answer, I'll give you the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: I am not going to apologize that I'm over here advocating for more nurse practitioners in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: That's our plan. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, he got no plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Both sides of the House please, enough. We are trying to move forward with Oral Questions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's good to see that the minister done the right thing. We never made no accusation. We asked a question based on what we are reading in the media. That's all. It was a release. If anyone would ask around, we had our own views on it, too, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: But he done the right thing, at least he apologized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Is he going to let me talk or is he going to stand up again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: I thought it was Question Period, I'd like to ask a question.

Am I okay to go, Sir?

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, again.

After nine years of this government, arrogance is up, complacency is up and time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Under the Provincial Health Authority Act ,

section 21(2): The authority may, with the approval of the minister, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire real property.

When did the minister sign off on these leases?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to address the

preamble because he asked for it.

You said: Thank you for your apology. I did not apologize because what was said that I said was not said on the floor of this House of Assembly. I said more NPs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. LOVELESS: I know it's funny to the Member for Terra Nova. I know it's funny for the Member for CBS. I understand he's laughing at it, but this is important to us.

What is important to us is that we do have a health care plan that includes the fundamental service of a nurse practitioner and that will continue. I'll advocate for more NPs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I remind the minister, I laugh in disbelief. That's all it is. Absolute flabbergasted, Speaker.

Speaker, I ask the minister: When did you sign off on these leases? You have that authority, so when did you do the signing off on those leases?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Service.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I'd like a specific reference to what leases he's referring to. The issues that's come up about leases since I've become minister, I spoke in the House of Assembly last week on a couple of occasions that the former minister, when he became aware that there were allegations about leases with agency nurses, he wrote the Auditor General, he wrote the CEO of NLHS and he wrote the chairman of the board of NLHS to look into that issue.

My understanding was in August, the leases were terminated. So all I was aware of was leases were being terminated, not approving any leases. I never, as minister, in my short time, approved any leases from NLHS.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I mean, the minister's name is over the door. Whether it was the former minister or this current minister, they know the details on all this information. What I'm asking here shouldn't be earth-shattering. The minister knows the answer to these questions.

Speaker, the act is clear and the minister is now either misleading the House or he failed to provide the legislative oversight of these improper leases.

So which is it, Minister? Simple question. You know the answer.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Sorry, I don't know, the question is not clear to me, actually. All I can say is that I never signed off on any leases on behalf of NLHS in my time as minister. There are previous ministers in the Department of Health – it goes back a long, long way, Speaker.

I can't speak to everything that every minister has done beforehand. All I can say is that I was aware when I became minister that there had been an issue with agency nurses and leasing and my understanding was leases had been terminated. I did not approve any leases with NLHS.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the minister should have known who signed off on those leases. Shame on him for not knowing that answer. Forget what minister was there, the minister should know that answer. I don't care what minister is there. He should know that answer. He's there right now.

Speaker, according to the press release from the health authority this morning, some 51 leases were terminated in August for contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Why didn't the minister proactively disclose this information back in August?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, I was aware of the termination of leases. As I said, we talked about that last week in the House. Of course, NLHS is different than the Department of Health and Community Services. They have taken the steps, as the employer. They are separate from the Department of Health and Community Services and, of course, as we've talked about in this House and as everyone is now aware and as NLHS is aware, the Auditor General is aware of this and is doing a review and investigation into this as well.

So NLHS wanted to make sure they were careful not to do anything to affect the findings of the Auditor General, which we all look forward to receiving in the very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: NLHS did their own investigation and these leases were cancelled based on their investigation.

Why doesn't that report be made public? We're getting information now and there's more going to come out in the coming days, no doubt. The minister should be aware of this and should be disclosing this publicly long before now.

Speaker, we already know that, under the act, the minister signs off on these leases. We know that. Yet, he continues to deflect his ministerial responsibilities, which we're seeing that.

Speaker, I ask the minister: How much money was inappropriately spent under this scheme?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

NLHS did some discussions this morning with the media about the situation, so they are being open and transparent. In fact, I did write NLHS as well, this morning, to make sure that now that is a topic of discussion in the media, in the House of Assembly and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that they write me back and make sure that they provide the information on the investigation that they did, the details of that and that it is important for the public to be aware, if the public wants to know about that.

I've asked them to do that and I'm sure they will do that in the near future.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister needs to realize, and the Premier should, too, this is a very serious issue. This shakes the public's confidence. It is not their money; it's the public's money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: They're entrusted to manage our money. They don't own it; it's the public's money.

Speaker, does the minister support the statement of his officials that these improper leases were well intended?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what officials he's referring to but NLHS, as I said, gave some information this morning on that. I wrote NLHS as well this morning to make sure that it's documented in a letter to me, as the minister, to outline the investigation that they did and the findings that they had.

My understanding is that all the leases were at market price.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, you know, he's trying to push off the health authority as not being under him. Who is it in under? It's so silly. He's the Minister of Health. The health authority reports to the Minister of Health, simple.

Who signed off on the leases, Minister? Did you not sign off on the leases? Did you not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Unbelievable!

Speaker, last week the minister said there was a violation of the Public Procurement Act – another accusation. Then he said I should read the act. The press release from the health authority does not mention it.

Can you clarify what your statement is based on?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I apologize for standing up too early, but I did hear a question. The question was did I sign off on the leases and again, for the third or fourth time, I did not sign off on the leases with NLHS.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, this scandal is yet another glaring example of mismanagement and poor oversight in our health care system.

We have also been told, internally, recruited nurses were exploited in this scheme. How many internationally recruited nurses who are still waiting for full-time jobs were offered housing instead of a job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very happy to provide information about the nurses that were recruited to Newfoundland and Labrador. Those who've come in from our two economic pathways, the AIP and the NLPNP, we have 110 nurses that have arrived and 31 are on the way before the end of the year, Speaker.

I just want to be clear that any nurse who've come through one of our economic immigration streams, who came with a job offer to be a registered nurse, is working as a registered nurse and can only work as a registered nurse.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Minister, if you never signed off on the leases, who did?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, as I said, I asked NLHS this morning to make sure that they provide a report outlining the details of their investigation. I can write them again today to make sure that they include details about who signed off on the leases.

At the end of the day, though, I know the lease would have been with NLHS and a landlord.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Based on the act, the previous minister should have signed off on it, and the current minister should know the answer to that question. But we'll keep digging.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, this whole fiasco started with a call to Ken Carter in the Premier's office. After months of deflection, this debacle is continuing to unravel. The Premier's office is directly involved in this travel nursing fiasco.

Who signed off on the leases for the houses, and did this also begin in your office, Premier?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: T hank you for the question.

Certainly, I didn't sign off on the leases, Mr. Speaker, but I do know someone in the House who was in a leadership position when agency nurses started. It's the Member opposite; he was a CEO of the health authority.

Did you, Sir, sign off on leases for agency nurses in Lab-Grenfell Health?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Under Newfoundland and Labrador labour law, your employer cannot interfere with your decision to join a union. But what about the Labour Relations Board?

I ask the minister if workers and unions have met with the minister's office to state that the board is not following the five-day rule for a vote to take place.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Member across the way for the question.

I have not met with anybody yet. There's been no request in to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Workers in unions have met with us to state that, in this province, it's taking weeks and months, not the five days required.

During these delays, workers' jobs are put at risk, stories of intimidation and bullying. I am told that these delays are a failure of the Labour Relations Board to work within the five-day rule.

Minister, how can this government allow worker confidence in our laws to be eroded? What are you doing to get the board back on track?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Of course everything we do here in Labour, as I've said before in this House, is we're always working, listening to both sides, the employers and employees, and we want to strike a balance. I've just brought in amendments to the labour act, just a week or so ago in this House, supporting and protecting workers around long-term illness, long-term injury, organ donation, et cetera. We also meet on the other side, supporting people on the business side, Speaker.

We don't want to do anything to add extra burden to the businesses in this community. But I'll certainly take away what the Member has raised here and I will report back to this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Speaker, this is not about extra burden to businesses; this is about the Labour Relations Board following the law – following the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: The Labour Relations Act says: “Where a vote is taken it shall be taken no more than 5 days, excluding holidays and weekends, after receipt by the board of the application for certification.”

So I ask the minister: How can this minister allow the Labour Relations Board to get away with not following the rules set out in the act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, the Member across the way asked me if they had met with me and brought this up to me, and I am not recalling anything to date. I did tell her I will take it away and I will look into it.

There has been a lot of meetings since I came into this portfolio late in the summer. As I said before, in those settings, we're working to promote and facilitate a stable and constructive labour relations climate in both the public and the private sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Speaker, it has been five years since the House passed speed camera legislation, yet not a single ticket has been issued. Meanwhile, reckless behaviour on our road continues, with recent reports of vehicles travelling 151 kilometres, 180 kilometres and even 201 kilometres per hour.

How much longer will the residents have to wait before this government finally takes action to make our roads safer? And let's not hear the answer: Stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, I won't even address, I call it, some of the nonsense comments. If it's a serious question, make it a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer, I say to the Member for Ferryland.

SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

E. LOVELESS: Because the sky is always falling with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: To the question at hand, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give accolades to the previous minister who did a lot of work on the speed cameras.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: The speed cameras are just one tool in the tool box of keeping people on our highways safe. Absolutely, speeding, what's been going on, reckless driving – I always remind everybody individually, we all have a responsibility. When you get behind the wheel, you have a weapon. You're weaponized, so be safe and take your own responsibility serious.

I got lots of things to show and to tell the people of this province, what we've been doing to keep our roads safe, but I don't have time.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Thursday, the Minister Responsible for Labour responded to my question by saying “… this government is committed to ensuring that labour legislation in this province remains relevant and responsive to the needs of the workers and workplaces ….”

Unions continue to tell us that they were waiting for up to six weeks for their union certification votes to even be counted. The legislation clearly states that it can take no more than five days.

So I ask the minister: Is breaking the labour law her idea of remaining relevant and responsive to the needs?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

What I can share with this House is we recently had a review done and we are proceeding with the recommendations from that review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Speaker, that's not good enough. Unions listened to the minister's response last week and are frustrated by the government's continued word of balance. That is not balanced. This is not how unions feel.

I ask the minister: Why does government continue to put their hand on the scale and tip in favour of employers and leaving out unions?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, the Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial board and we cannot interfere with the operations of that. Is that what the Member is asking me to do, Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, heckled comments about nurse practitioners, delays in pay equity and transparency, the refusal to implement anti-scab legislation or review the Labour Relations Board all demonstrate a disrespect for the workers by this government.

So I ask the Premier: Why does his government pretend to care about workers?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Always happy to stand and answer questions related to labour. It's very important to have checks and balances and processes in place. The Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial board, and what the Member across the way is asking me to do is interfere in the operational aspect of that board, and it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

We recently did have a review, based on some of the concerns that were coming to us. We had a full review of the board, we are proceeding with the recommendations and the Member will find out about those details in due time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The problem is the board isn't operating. But let's talk about things this government can do to demonstrate their care.

Speaker, in that case, I ask the Premier: When will his government introduce anti-scab legislation?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

That is a new one for me. Since I've come into this department and we've had some discussion on it, but it's something we're always listening, we're always learning, we're always looking to see what other jurisdictions are doing, but not something that we're prepared to move on right now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, a failure to move on it is only hurting workers, the very group of people they claim to be concerned with.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will his government reintroduce card check?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Could you repeat the question, the last piece, please?

J. DINN: I asked the Premier: When will his government reintroduce card check or single-step certification?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I think this was a question that was asked on Thursday. I think it was the same question that was asked on Thursday and I'll sort of give the same answer. Our government is committed to ensuring that labour legislation in this province remains relevant and responsive to the needs of workers and workplaces throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We've certainly had conversations with the Federation of Labour about this. We're aware of their concerns but as I always say, every time I'm up speaking about labour, it is important that we ensure the appropriate balance is maintained between the rights of workers and the needs of employers here in this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, balance from this government's point of view is when they've got their hand tipped squarely on the side of the employer.

When will this government listen to unions and ensure that the problems of the Labour Relations Board are fixed?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I think I've answered that, Speaker, two or three times. I thank the Member again for the same question.

There has been a review of the board done and we are proceeding with some of the recommendations. In terms of labour relations, what I will say is that – and I think I did say this at my first question – government is not contemplating any changes to the labour relations at this time, but we always welcome the opportunity to discuss concerns that are brought to my attention, in particular now as the Labour Minister, with respect to the current legislative regime, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Speaker,

WHEREAS the loss of the Ocean Ranger and its entire crew on 15th of February 1982 was a disaster of global implications that affected the soul of our province; and

WHEREAS the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger Marine Disaster concluded inadequate emergency training, a flawed rig design and poorly enforced safety regulation as crucial elements in the disaster; and

WHEREAS much of the physical evidence used in the Royal Commission, including a wide array of records and materials from the rig, were placed in secure storage at Ingenium in Ottawa by the federal Department of Justice; and

WHEREAS the loss of the Ocean Ranger and subsequent recommendations from the Royal Commission improved the design and safety features of future facilities, more stringent regulations regarding safety equipment, and training; and

WHEREAS family and friends of the 84 men lost on the Ocean Ranger have expressed the view that the physical evidence should be returned to the province; and

WHEREAS the Ocean Ranger Legacy Foundation has formed to use all of this material as a memorial for education and a means of encouraging continued vigilance regarding offshore safety;

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's motion referred to by the Member for Lake Melville will be the private Member's motion to be debated this Wednesday, November 20, 2024.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2024.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS municipal leaders and individual residents have spoken out to the deplorable road conditions in the District of Cape St. Francis; and

WHEREAS Route 20, specifically from Flatrock to Pouch Cove, is in desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 20 has high-volume traffic flows every day, the drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting and areas of shoulder washout;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take steps to repair and repave this important roadway to ensure the safety of the driving public who use this

section of the provincial road on a regular basis.

Speaker, I am getting calls and emails on a regular basis with respect to this

section of Route 20, specifically from Flatrock to Pouch Cove. I have had people reach out to me on numerous occasions, reaching out again regarding the state of Pouch Cove highway. Again, this one gentleman says, as a daily commuter, the ongoing damage to my vehicle through these rough road conditions is frustrating. I'm hopeful that comprehensive, durable repairs can be prioritized in the upcoming year.

This is nothing new. Since I've been here, we've gone through three Transportation and Infrastructure ministers. They're all aware of the conditions of the roadway; I've invited them to come to my district. When you're looking at sections of road being described as – by seasoned drivers – the worst I've seen since I've been driving, this is very, very concerning to me. I travel over the same stretch of road and I understand what they're saying. I appreciate what they're saying, because it is absolutely correct.

I will say, the Transportation and Infrastructure staff from White Hills who are responsible for my district do the best job they possibly can with what they have, and I give them credit for that. I have spoken to them while they're doing repairs and I appreciate the work that they do, but the repairs are very short term. This winter is coming, we're going to have freeze and thaw, the plows are going to be back on the road and the potholes will be here once again.

I have people, Speaker, in my district who are travelling through the community of Bauline, not travelling Route 20 from Pouch Cove to Flatrock to get to St. John's because the road is so bad. We have people actually leaving and taking the longer route to go to the community of Bauline, into Torbay, to come into St. John's because the road is so bad. We have people actually leaving and taking the longer route to go to the community of Bauline into Torbay to come into St. John's.

I ask the minister – I know that he's listening – he's more than welcome to come to my district again to have a look at the road conditions, I'd be happy to be with him, and see if we get something done for the people of my district.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

The breakwater on the lower coast in Trepassey is in urgent need of repair. This breakwater is necessary to protect the one and only access road to the lower coast.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to complete the necessary repairs and install a more durable and sustainable breakwater.

Well, Speaker, this weekend we've had another incident, it started last Thursday. To go back to get a little bit of detail, I met with the minister on October 21 on the breakwater in Trepassey that was destroyed in February. There was nothing done so the Town of Trepassey wanted a meeting. We had four or five counsellors there, I was there and he had some members from his office as well and he was in attendance as well.

Over the weekend, three times, the town has had to go up and clean off the roads themselves to get the kelp and the rocks off the road from the lower coast in order to get by. It's a safety issue.

They went up and put in a wall that the people knew wasn't going to last up there. The engineering did it and it fell down. They did a study on it to see what happened. Now they have to spend more money to go up and put it up again.

In October, they told us it's going to take two weeks, we'd go up and put some rock or do some temporary repair. So the town is responsible this week to clean up that mess three times from a contractor in the town. Costly to the town.

They should have had this done long ago. There's no reason it shouldn't be done. I asked them when we had a meeting, maybe the department of highways can use one of their pieces of equipment to go up and clean off the road to get it cleaned so it doesn't cost the town, with the department of highways in the area, but no, they didn't get permission for that.

On the weekend, there was a 90-year-old lady who had to get in a Side By Side with her son to get over from the coast to go out to town to go to an event with one of her friends. It's not acceptable. They should be up and they should have had this done long ago. It happened in February; meeting in October, it's going to be two weeks. We're still up there and it's still not done.

So when are we going to get it done? When is the place going to get done up there, Minister? We've been too long up there and it should be done.

You get up here and wonder why we get so ticked off in stuff that's happening in your district. This is going on since February. Then there were two hurricanes before that, it was done. It's time to get the solution and time to fix the problem once and for all, Minister.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: The background to this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS in the District of Harbour Main there are many residents who are concerned with the deteriorating cellphone service that they have been experiencing in recent months. There has been a significant decline in cellphone service throughout the district where calls are being dropped and residents are unable to get their calls got through for no apparent reason.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work and partner with the very cellular providers and telecommunication officials to stabilize and improve the cellphone service within the region so that citizens have a reliable service that they can depend on.

Speaker, this is the fifth time that I've raised this petition in the hon. House of Assembly. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Opposition have also raised it many times before. In fact, the MHA for Ferryland just raised it 11 days ago.

We all know how bad cellphone service is. We've heard it from everyone. We've heard it from our constituents. I hear it everywhere in my district. We're hearing it from, not only constituents, but even my constituents have resorted to online petitions in the areas of Conception Harbour, Avondale and Makinsons. We've heard it from towns like Clarke's Beach, Holyrood, Conception Bay South, letters to government for action, for solutions. There are dropped calls, terrible reception or no reception at all.

We've also heard it from the Auditor General of Canada report which was in the House of Commons back in March of just last year. The Auditor General said that Newfoundland and Labrador is the worst in Canada for cellphone service – the worst rural, cellular connectivity in the country.

This is unacceptable, Speaker. This is unacceptable. Without access to fast, reliable and affordable mobile cellular services, we do not have the same opportunities in rural Newfoundland as people residing in other areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: We cannot stand for this any further.

Now, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology – when I raised this last time in the House – he encouraged me to reach out to Bell, which I have done. I've spoken to them, as well. He has acknowledged, as well, that it is – in his words last week in response to the Member for Ferryland – degrading. The service is degrading. He's also said and acknowledged that it's not good enough. Companies are not doing good enough. It's not acceptable. He said we have to find the ways to make them live up to it.

So what are those ways? We need to know. Yes, we understand, and we get the minister's point, it's federally regulated so it is not the entire province's problem, but the province has a responsibility. The province has an important responsibility to protect consumers from big corporations like those who are benefitting financially from all of the people who they are not providing service to that they are charging for.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the reasons for this petition:

Anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993 and the federal government has committed to introducing such legislation by the end of 2023, which they already have.

The use of temporary-replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of our community, the local economy and the well-being of residents.

Anti-temporary replacement worker legislation has shown to reduce the length and divisiveness of labour disputes.

Since 2015, the right to strike has been clearly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms because it helps to stabilize the power and balance between workers and the employer, and the use of temporary replacement workers undermines that right.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

I've brought this petition to the House many times and I'll continue to bring copies of this petition to the House until this is enacted. We've seen it at the federal level. They saw the need that this has to be done and we're asking that it be done on a provincial level as well. We've seen stuff with the Vale strike years ago, D-J Composites. There are numbers even further back. The use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout has been causing very divisive and long-standing labour disputes that were very unnecessary.

We've seen this, we've seen it on the federal level. We've seen other provinces see the need that this has to be

an act and we're calling on this province to bring forward legislation to ban anti-temporary replacement workers or anti-scab legislation into this House of Assembly to be debated.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

The spring repairing of destructive potholes in the roads within the District of Bonavista have taken months to complete. Thousands of residents and tourists travel these roads frequently and many have had their cars damaged. Not great for the residents in the district, nor the school buses carrying their children, nor our economic development with bad roads serving as a deterrent to tourists.

The late Jim Brown of J-1 Contracting stated that he could repair every pothole in the District of Bonavista within two weeks.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a goal of having every pothole within the District of Bonavista filled with hot asphalt within a six-week period and prior to the end of the June.

I met with the minister and his staff and in that I had asked: Is that a reasonable request? I repeated it a second time and I was told by a member of the department: No, that's not an unreasonable request. Here we are now into November and we've got roads in the District of Bonavista with, again, potholes that are destructive in nature.

I just wanted to give a couple of situations on how bad our roads are. In Princeton, we had Neil and Samantha and their two young children, which I don't recommend, but they were out repairing potholes in the roads. It was the idea of their five-year-old daughter, Irelyn, to do it – and note: I don't recommend that.

I said the same thing to Glenn Ploughman in George's Brook-Milton, who, one day, was seen with a wheelbarrow going to fill up potholes in George's Brook-Milton. We don't suggest that.

We would ask that six weeks is not an unreasonable period of time to make sure that when the tourism season started, we have no destructive potholes in the District of Bonavista. And like the minister's department official had said, that's not unreasonable.

What problems we have is that we've got wonderful tourist attractions in the district – and I just throw one of those, from the UNESCO discovery geopark; in Tickle Cove, the Sea Arch, wonderfully attractive piece, but you travel the road to get to Tickle Cove and you'll realize that if word of mouth happens after that, it's going to be a problem.

Mr. Mike Conners ought not to have to travel over that road. I would say six weeks is not unreasonable. I would ask the government to make sure it's done.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is for improved inclusion for Northern Labrador communities to participate in the Newfoundland and Labrador incentive/rebate programs.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that residents in Northern Labrador communities be given due consideration when the provincial government develops, or develops in the collaboration with others, incentive programs such as the Oil to Electric Incentive Program and the residential construction rebate program. Those are just two examples.

Northern Labrador residents are excluded from qualifying for the provincial and federal government oil to electric incentives because all Northern Labrador communities are supplied with electricity from diesel generating power stations. That's what they've told us.

Northern Labrador residents were cost excluded from applying for the 2020 Residential Construction Rebate because all the work had to be done by an eligible contractor. There were no eligible contractors based in Northern Labrador and the travel cost for the contractors and their materials negated any value of the rebate.

We believe programs should be inclusive.

Now, Speaker, I've presented this quite a few times, but it's about being inclusive when you talk about Newfoundland and Labrador rebates, Newfoundland and Labrador inclusion programs. Say, for example, converting from oil to electric, the minister talked a lot in the House of Assembly about, first it was the provincial government, the incentives were $17,000, and then it went up to, with some help from the federal government, I think $22,000 or $23,000 – it's in my notes. But all that money to help with the more cost-effective electricity programs to heat your house were basically excluded in my district.

I know, during Estimates, the minister talked about a $500 rebate to our seniors in Northern Labrador, and also in Southern Labrador, to help offset the cost of oil. But, Speaker, in the winter months, $500 will buy you maybe two weeks of oil to heat your house – two weeks.

So we look at the winter months, from November to May, that's seven months. It's not even going to help them with one month of heating their house; it's just half a month. So what are they going to do for the other 6½ months? Seniors are on fixed income. But what about the low-income families who don't even qualify for this?

Then we look at the rebates. I've got to say the home heating rebate is really, really good. That's $500, and you only got to actually buy 250 litres. But, at the end of the day, that $500 is only for probably two weeks again, Speaker. We need to be included in all the programs.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 33,

An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy.

Speaker, I also want to read for the record in relation to Bill 33: I wish to notify the House of the requirement for a small change in the

short title of Bill 33. Due to the time passed since first reading of this bill, the

short title has been updated to now read Hydro Corporation Act, 2024 , instead of Hydro Corporation Act, 2023 .

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of IPGS – because I can't remember the full name – second reading on the Nalcor amalgamation act, Bill 33.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 33 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy.” (Bill 33)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased today to stand up and be able to debate this act, which its

long title is

An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy. The purpose of this legislation today is to complete the legal merger of Nalcor Energy into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, this bill has been on the Order Paper for some time. While it has been a while since we've been able to speak about this, the reality is that the operationalizing of this has been ongoing for the last couple of years. We are now at the juncture where the legal effect can take place, and hopefully, as this bill moves through into Committee and third reading and proclamation, it will give effect to something that we have been doing, and certainly Hydro has been doing, for a couple of years. That is the dismantling, essentially, of Nalcor and the bringing it inside of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

In June 2021, we actually announced the merger of Nalcor into the single corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It's something we talked about for some time, but sometimes it takes longer than one would anticipate to do this. Although I think we said clearly then that this would take some time, and there's been a lot of work ongoing.

So since that time when we made that announcement, Hydro has moved Nalcor operations under the Hydro banner. They've eliminated duplication in areas such as finance, IT, HR, in the executive branch. Many of the changes are already in place; they're already in effect. They were not requiring the passage of this legislation to happen.

In fact, they've happened and been in the works and been going on seamlessly in many cases for many months and, in fact, years. What we're doing here is the amalgamation of the associated legal formalities. So both Nalcor and Hydro – and just for people who might be watching, when I say Hydro, I'm talking about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, NLH. Depending on where I am, I could use a number of different terms, but that's the entity that I'm talking about.

So they're both current statutory corporations; they were both created in 2007. Nalcor was under the Energy Corporation Act , the ECA and Hydro was continued under the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, the HCA. This amalgamation will see both of these acts repealed, and they will be replaced by a single act, the Hydro Corporation Act, 2024 .

Under this act, all of Nalcor's and Hydro's assets, liabilities, obligations, agreements, they all continue under this new piece of legislation. Most provisions of the previous acts are combined, and they are retained in this new piece of legislation.

Generally, if I were to sum up using bullet points what we're dealing with here: it gives effect to this amalgamation, legally speaking; it confirms the property of each corporation continues to be the property of Hydro and that Hydro will continue to be liable for the rights and obligations of both entities; provides for the continuation of employment of Nalcor's and Hydro's bargaining and non-bargaining employees with Hydro; it confirms no action or proceeding will be commenced or can be commenced against the provincial government, Nalcor, Hydro, Hydro's officers, directors, employees, resulting from the amalgamation of this legislation – again, a common aspect here; finally, it confirms a continuation of any security or guarantee provided by the provincial government to Nalcor with Hydro.

There are many pieces under this pretty sizable piece of legislation that are your standard forms you see in many. There are some that are significant, I think, or noteworthy.

Section 30, which is a new provision under this act, ensures that there is explicit legislative authority for the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology to request documents and/or information from the corporation. This is consistent with the recommendations in the report from the Muskrat Falls inquiry commissioner, the hon. Richard D. LeBlanc, and from the statutory review of ATIPPA 2015 that was conducted by former Chief Justice David Orsborn.

Under

section 31, protections under the ECA for commercially sensitive information carry over to the new act, but they are narrowed to information relating to oil and gas activities only, which, again, aligns with the recommendation from Justice Orsborn's ATIPPA review.

I think those are very important and I'm sure they'll be brought up during the debate and we can speak more about it. But we're glad to see that we've followed the recommendations that were laid out here and that was one of the big ones that have been a talking point for many years. We've made sure to cover it off here, which is important.

This amalgamation returns Hydro to its core function as an electricity utility. That is what it was created for. Now, it will still also hold oil and gas assets that were currently being held by Nalcor.

Section 14 addresses the role of Hydro in R & D to ensure Hydro focuses on utility operations. So it clarifies that the objects of the corporation will no longer include R & D but will continue to include oil and gas activities, but only with LGIC approval that it can be revoked if a decision is undertaken to sell the assets, which is another conversation.

There are no existing R & D activities identified and 14(2)(

b) would allow the LGIC to approve the objects as required.

section 36, the Public Procurement Act exemption under the ECA continues for strategic partnerships or equity investments, such as oil and gas partnerships, sale of energy and energy products and benefits agreements. However, government retains shareholder authority to direct Hydro to adhere to the PPA or other matters, and hydro related activities under the Public Utilities Act so they're not subject to this exemption.

Upon third reading and passing in the House, we anticipate that proclamation would occur by year-end. This provides Hydro time to give notice to relevant parties, including the federal government, as well as other important administrative requirements to coincide with the fiscal year of the corporation.

I'm about to conclude, but I think it's important to note that, again, we're here dealing with the legal aspect. A lot of this work has already taken place. This is the final piece to allow for the completion of this task which we've been talking about.

So I'll sit down at this point and listen to the comments from my colleagues on both sides and, hopefully, we can continue moving forward with this bill.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for this legislation. We don't see any huge issues about it. We're going to have some questions when we go to Committee, but it's a decent bill and it's going to accommodate some action that needs to happen.

The bill is going to remove the previously existing Hydro Corporation Act and Energy Corporation Act and replace it with the new Hydro Corporation Act. This is done to facilitate, as the minister said, the legal merger of the two corporations into Newfoundland Hydro. As the two previous corporations were legislative corporations, this merger does not follow traditional corporate law, but it must be carried out through legislation here in the House.

The previous Hydro Corporation Act was used as the framework for this new legislation, with the new necessary language brought from the Energy Corporation Act . There are several policy changes which the minister has highlighted. It starts off with commercially sensitive information. The definition of commercially sensitive information is being changed to narrow the exemption as it relates to the ATIPPA process. Previously, Nalcor had a broader definition of commercially sensitive information; thus, a broader definition for ATIPPA, including exemption.

Commercially sensitive information will now only apply to activities and information related to oil and gas. This is being done in line with the recommendations that came from the ATIPPA statutory review.

Objectives of the corporation: There's language included in this which specifies the objectives of the corporation are to be in accordance with the priorities of the government of the province. By this language being added, it makes it clear that the corporation is to follow the lead of government.

It also gives the minister some broader capabilities. The minister will be able to request information from the corporation, which the corporation will have to provide the minister. This is a new policy change which is being added as a result of recommendations for both the Muskrat Falls inquiry and the statutory ATIPPA review.

Speaker, this bill is going to amalgamate two companies and bring them in under the government fold and give the minister some much needed oversight capabilities, and the province will have greater access through the ATIPPA process.

We'll have some questions when we go to Committee, but that's it for us.

It's a good piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, this was a long-awaited piece of legislation. I guess, the final piece in bringing NL Hydro and Nalcor Energy into one entity. We do see some of the changes made, allowing for ATIPPA and what is defined as commercially sensitive information, when it comes to that.

We know that there is some suggestions taken from the Muskrat Falls inquiry. There are a couple of things that were not changed that was recommended from the Muskrat Falls inquiry and I'll have those for questions in Committee for the minister on why those changes were not made. Other than that, we'll have those for him in Committee.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll be supporting this bill. As I said, when we talked about this before, I think it was one thing that we did positive for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the last few years was to disband Nalcor and a lot of the history that went with it.

As I said, I will support the bill and, as others have said, there are some questions, I guess, we would have during Committee of the Whole.

As the minister said, this is the final piece because from an operational point of view, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have been operating on its own now outside of Nalcor, if you will, for, I think it's a couple of years.

I do know that one of the concerns that we had, and it came up through the Muskrat Falls inquiry, was the whole concept of Nalcor basically doing what it like, doing whatever it wanted to do with no real controls over them. Similar to what we've seen at Memorial University, quite frankly, and thankfully the Auditor General is able to go in there. We know she went in there and some of the shocking things that were discovered there, but no doubt, Nalcor, when it was under the Energy Corporation Act , it had basically free rein to do whatever they want. That's why we saw a situation, for example, with DarkNL.

I know I'm after bringing this up so many times, but I can't resist; I've got to bring it up again. DarkNL – they couldn't keep the lights on, which was their primary mandate of the NL Hydro portion of Nalcor, if you will. They couldn't keep the lights on. We found out through, I believe it's a Liberty report it's called, that the reason was that basic maintenance wasn't being done at Holyrood and so on, yet everybody got their big corporate bonus at the end of the year because they had a good safety record. That was the rationale that was given by the then CEO of Nalcor: We had a good safety record. You couldn't keep the lights on, but we had a good safety record. So full executive bonuses.

This is the kind of stuff that was going on. It was out of control and it had to be stopped. I will give credit to the minister, to this administration, in the sense that I think we've turned the page. A lot of changes have occurred. Unfortunately, it came as a result of a lot of the things that came out in the Muskrat Falls inquiry.

Quite frankly, there was a lot of people that should have been held accountable but they weren't, unfortunately. But they have moved on. It seems like Ms. Williams – I believe that's her name – has got a good handle on things now. I will say she's doing a good job until she proves me wrong, I guess. Hopefully, she won't.

But I do know that the Auditor General was in to NL Hydro not that long ago and there were a few things that the Auditor General pointed out in terms of the lavish spending, salaries, bonuses and everything else. I will say that the minister, I believe, if I'm not mistaken – I can recall coming to the House of Assembly, getting rid of the bonuses, which is a positive thing, I would say.

One of the things that came up in the Auditor General's report was the salaries and so on and how they're totally out of sync with the public service. I never heard anything after, other than Ms. Williams's response to that, that there were a number of things they were going to fix, that they did agree with the Auditor General on; but one of the things they didn't agree with the Auditor General on was the salaries and so on being totally out of sync with the public service and that she had every intention, was what I got from it, that nothing was going to change. We're going to continue on with these huge salaries, regardless of what the Auditor General had to say.

So to the best of my knowledge, that's what she said. I don't recall the government coming forward after the fact and saying, well, I'm sorry, Ms. Williams, that you feel that way but we're with the Auditor General and we're going to try to rein this in. I never heard that. Maybe it happened behind the scenes, but I'm kind of curious as to where we stand when it comes to compensation and so on. And if we are paying reasonable salaries now or if we will be, as new people move in, will they be in line with other government entities or will they continue to be very, very lucrative.

I do understand there's an issue around trying to retain talent and so on. I'm not foolish enough to not be aware of that, but I just wonder where we stand with that around the wages. Of course, I also look forward to the Auditor General, I believe, is also – if she's not there, she's going into, I believe, OilCo because I have a feeling that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: She was into OilCo too, wasn't she? Yes, that's right, she was. There are that many reports floating around, I thank the minister, but there was the same kind of issues there. Anyway, I'd like for us to get a handle on that.

Section 30 that the minister references in terms of requests for info and so on, the minister can request information from NL Hydro. That must be provided to him. That's a good thing because I think back to kind of in the heights of around the Muskrat Falls inquiry and it was around that time I can remember former Premier Dwight Ball coming out publicly and saying how he was going to get the information on all the embedded contractors. We can remember the embedded contractors and some of the crazy amounts of money that we saw there.

That was another thing that, from my perspective on the outside looking in, seemed like that was totally out of control. There was information out there suggesting that they were just putting in their own hours. There was nobody checking in the hours. I think there was one person I recall seeing in the media or some story where they said one particular individual who was an embedded contractor, that he would have had to have worked something like 18 hours a day, 365 days a year, to actually accumulate the hours that was billed for. There was all this craziness going on.

I can remember the premier of the day, Premier Ball, saying he was going to get the information because, of course, there was a lot of public outrage. Then I recall the premier going to Mr. Martin and Mr. Martin basically saying to the premier, no, we're not releasing any of the information on the embedded contractors because we are exempted from ATIPPA. So he wasn't even going to provide it to the premier of the province, let alone the general public because they had that exemption under ATIPPA.

That is a problem. I felt then and I still feel the same now – I understand commercial sensitivity; I totally get that – but I cannot see why we do not have it, why it still can't fall to the Information and Privacy Commissioner that if there are reasonable requests for information around spending, because it's still taxpayers' money, that it cannot be adjudicated by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Because under the circumstance which existed, no matter what it was – even if the information was reasonable, if it wasn't what you could call truly, truly commercially sensitive, if it wasn't going to cause any harm that Nalcor, at the time, could simply deny any requests. Under that legislation, there wasn't even a requirement to give a reason.

Under ATIPP if you're not going to release it, at least the corporation or the government department has to say we are not providing you this information because, and they have to give a reason for denial. Then of course it can be appealed through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. If the corporation doesn't like what the Information and Privacy Commissioner, they can take it to court. So there are a lot of steps and protections along the way for everybody. But under Nalcor at the time, they could just simply flat out say no. Didn't matter what it was, no. Why? Don't have to tell you; I'm just not giving it to you.

Of course, we had an opportunity, I thought, when we had brought in new legislation around the creation of – there was another bill that was similar to this one and we had the creation of OilCo. At the time when we had the creation of OilCo, I had said in debate to the minister of the day, now Minister of Finance, why is it that we're keeping this same clause for OilCo? Why don't we change this now for OilCo, now that we're here? But it didn't happen. They didn't change it.

I see this as a step in the right direction, in that at least the minister gets some information, but I still would like to see some sort of a process where reasonable requests can be made from the public, from the media, from the Opposition, from whoever and there's a process where they can't just outright, flat out, say, no, you're not getting anything because we don't have to tell you anything. There should be a process there and I think it should be adjudicated by the Privacy Commissioner. That's why we have a Privacy Commissioner. If the Privacy Commissioner gets it wrong, that's why we have the courts and that's how ATIPPA works.

So while I see this as an improvement, I would like to see it go a little further, I guess.

Beyond that, I do support the legislation and, like I say, I'll ask those questions when we get to Committee, unless someone else asks them first or the minister comments now in his response, and that's fine.

I'm certainly not against what is trying to be done here and, I think, we do need to move forward. We need to get rid of that name Nalcor because, I think, just even the optics of it, people have long ago lost faith in Nalcor. That brand is something that an awful lot of people in this province just didn't have any faith in any longer.

Making it NL Hydro, OilCo, again, I supported it at the time, I still support that concept, but there are those couple of issues that I would like to see. I would have liked to have seen it gone, perhaps, a little further so that there was more opportunity for openness and transparency to the general public, as opposed to simply just to the minister. Not suggesting that this minister wouldn't share stuff with the public or anything like that. That's not the point, but the point is that to try to make it as open and transparent as we can.

If we're going to move forward, call it a new name, have a Hydro and an OilCo versus a Nalcor, that's all good, but we need to do more than just change the name, we also need to try to restore faith in those processes. Like I say, having that ability for the general public to be able to have more access to information, maybe a little bit more proactive disclosure would be a good idea, too. Bearing in mind, commercial sensitivity, legitimately, when they're dealing with oil companies and stuff like that, I get that, but to strike a better balance where there is more disclosure to the public, wherever possible.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate the comments from my colleagues on the other side and look forward to the Committee stage of this where a lot of the questions will come out and, certainly, I'll try my best to answer. Thankfully, with modern technology and we've got a good cell connection here, I'm able to – a lot of this is super technical. So I will do my best to ensure that we get answers to the questions. Although, I will point out, there was a substantive briefing on this. Some of the points that have been brought up are not quite accurate.

I am going to address that now because I know that it's the Member for Mount Pearl - Southland's big issue and he hasn't changed his tone on this. He's been very consistent for a long time, but we actually have made a substantive change here.

The process you described has actually changed from what it was so that commercial information is subject to ATIPPA, except for the oil and gas. Now, if people ask why oil and gas information is still kept the same way, it's because we're not the full partners in that. We have other parties that are in these oil and gas deals with us. We have access to their information and disclosing that would not only subject us to multi-billion-dollar litigation; the fact is there are rules around it. That's been the same; that's not changing. I don't think anybody's ever suggested that was an issue, but when it comes to, right now, the new commercial information, that, actually, is subject under ATIPPA.

I'm sure every corporation out there would rather give up as little information as possible, but we felt quite strongly, especially when you had the commissioners, David Orsborn and Richard LeBlanc, looking at this. That's why we didn't allow for hydroelectric information, we'll say, commercial sensitivities to be applied here. We all want to make sure that's so. We've all been through that. We don't want to go down that road again.

Now, I am going to give two shout-outs, now, at the stage, prior to the Committee stage. Number one, I get to stand up and talk about this, but a lot of this work was done prior to my getting there. I give credit to the current Minister of Finance. Certainly, she was there, a lot of this was on her watch. I just get to continue that work. Part of that, too, obviously, is the Department of IET, the Department of Finance, Department of JPS, there are a lot of different parts to this. This is extremely complex stuff.

I don't pretend that I was ever a good corporate lawyer that could look at all this and make sure I covered it off. That's why we have so many different hands on this, making it what it was.

I think, if anything, though, we did supply, certainly, a political lens and the issue the Member brought up was that we have a public that's not going to tolerate the situation that we went through.

Now one point the Member brought up – again, I'm saying this all now, I'm happy to sit and when we go through the Committee stage – one of the things he talked about was the salaries. So I just want to point out a couple of things, and that goes into the second shout-out. I've been a part of a lot of decisions in this role and I think one of the better ones was the hiring of Jennifer Williams to become the new leader of Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: Without saying anything about anyone else prior or whatever, all I'll say is this, Ms. Williams is a dedicated public servant. She is a great person to have there. To the point where my biggest issue with her is that there are sometimes when I ask her an issue and I'm like, Jennifer, you have to stop, you're way above my head in terms of my comprehension levels. She loves the field of energy; she loves hydroelectricity. She is good. To the point, too, where I have had constituents or people on the other side reach out, and she is open to talking to them.

She recognizes the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, so I commend her and her team as well.

So a couple of points brought up here. There has been a reduction of executive positions by 50 per cent. That is a big number. It went immediately from 18 to 11 and post-announcement two more are gone. The CEO is actually taking a significant pay cut. I'm going to get into executive pay now. It is not a politically popular topic, but it is one that we should have. There was also a 35 per cent reduction in total executive compensation.

Again, all steps undertaken under the leadership of Ms. Williams and her team. I would like to think that, through various steps, we stepped in and said what our goals were, as a government, to see change here. Vehicle allowances and performance bonuses, gone; executive and senior vice-president roles, gone. There has been redundancy elimination; travel cost reductions; other miscellaneous spending.

They no longer rely on embedded contractors. A point brought up by the Member, certainly ticked us all off when we saw there was a lack of accountability, not an issue now. Subject to review by the AG, which is what we want to see and, in fact, appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. They've done some great things, to the point where they're now getting national recognition from groups like Electricity Canada for their sustainability measures, for their leadership, for their achievement and they are doing great things.

One of the big things is that they've had increased reliability for customers with the lowest interruption duration in 10 years. I can remember, I was sitting here when we had DarkNL and that was hard on everybody. Certainly, it was hard on the members of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, too. A lot of these front-line people, they bear the brunt sometimes of things that are not part of any decision that they ever made.

I think over the last number of years, through the leadership of Ms. Williams and I think through their own actions, we've done a lot to increase morale within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They've done a lot to increase morale there and that's important, and that speaks to the pay.

This might be just an issue of a difference of opinions, but I don't think utilities necessarily match up explicitly with the public service. It is hard to weigh one against the other because the reality is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's competition is not poor public service. It's Newfoundland Power and its other utilities.

So when you're trying to keep your staff, when they can do the exact same job with the other utility in the province paying them significantly more, that becomes an issue. It's an issue within government. I don't mind saying it. I mean, I have difficultly sometimes keeping skilled employees because the feds can come in and pay more, private industry can come in and pay more and that's a big issue everywhere.

I mean, just within this House, there's compensation arguments. Look, you'll never win an argument with the public saying that a politician or a public servant or somebody like that should be paid more. But I will say, I have a disagreement here, and I agree with the position of Ms. Williams, that it is hard to compare apples to apples here when we talk about some of these people.

Now, on the top level, there's been a reduction, but again, there's a difference there when you're comparing them to a different entity than core public service. We could have that debate all day; that's not the purpose of this. The purpose of this is that we're finally giving effect to something we've talked about.

I agree completely, the ending of the Nalcor brand, it started off great and wonderful. Again, the purpose is not to get into what happened and how it went, but I'd like to think that we're on the right track to taking care of that issue, which was something that was felt and we all have, and it certainly didn't create a positive memory in anybody's brain when we heard that name.

But Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I think, is a very positive name. The are men and women throughout this province who are doing great work. Now we can give effect to the legal formalities to bring this together. The work has been ongoing and, in fact, over the last two years, we weren't waiting on this bill. Over the last two, three, four years, this work has already been undertaken quietly, efficiently, getting it done and that's what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's doing.

So on that note, I'll sit down. I know there are going to be a lot of questions, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this and I appreciate comments from my colleagues.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 33 will 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy. (Bill 33)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.

SPEAKER: And a seconder, please.

L. DEMPSTER: Seconded by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Technology.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 33,

An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy.

A bill, “An Act Respecting the Amalgamation of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and Nalcor Energy” (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, under clause 2, the definition of commercially sensitive information has been changed to narrow the exemption as it relates to ATIPPA. Previously, Nalcor had a broader definition of commercially sensitive information and, thus, a broader exemption from the ATIPPA process.

Now only commercially sensitive information as it relates to oil and gas will be able to be withheld under the ATIPPA rules. My question is regarding the information that Hydro receives from NL Power, which NL Power may consider commercially sensitive. How will that be dealt with?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I think my answer to this question is it depends on what the information is and what is requested. They still have the ability to deny the release of information under ATIPPA. If the party that is applying for it does not like it, they are able to bring that to the Commissioner to have a decision made on that. I think it will depend on what's the information that's requested.

My take on it is if it's sensitive information with NL Power, then they would have an ability under ATIPPA to redact that and not disclose it. In a bigger sense, the goal here was not to increase the exemption when we talk about hydroelectric and to keep it what it was for the reasons I laid out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: How would information that Hydro receives from large industrial companies about their load forecast be treated under ATIPPA?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: So this would all be handled under the normal process for anybody applying for information to any entities. Whether that's Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, whether it's the Department of IET or any departments, it's the same rules. They make an application for the information; the entity has the ability to review that request, to determine whether they think it's sensitive or should not be released for various reasons under the different exemptions; and they can make that decision.

My take on it is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro – which, believe me, gets an inordinate number of requests – that they will continue to protect commercially sensitive information from any of the groups they deal with, including other industrial entities. If the person who's applying wants to contest that, they have the process which they could follow and let the Commissioner sort it out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Clause 7 continues with collective agreements. Does the minister have any information about which unions previously represented workers at Hydro and Nalcor, and are there any instances where unionized employees now work side by side in the same positions with other employees who are members of a different union or non-unionized?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: So the big thing about this legislation is that there will be no contractual obligations that change – basically, by switching it over from, say, Nalcor to Hydro, it would stay the same. They still have the same rights and obligations there.

I have not been made aware as to any issues, as you mentioned, but I will say that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nalcor and a number of other entities have all had a glimpse at this legislation over the last two years. I haven't been presented with anything that presents an issue. So that's the basis on which I operate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Clause 11 contains language that specifies the corporation is an agent of the Crown but later, in clause 12, it says that regarding Muskrat Falls the corporation is not acting as an agent of the Crown. Can the minister, please, provide some context to that explanation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: So on that one, I am going to await a specific answer on that. It wasn't a question that was asked in the briefing and it's not something that's been brought to me. I'm sure there's a legal reasoning for that. I'm going to wait to get an answer before I just toss out a guess at you. I'm sure there's some kind of formalized reason as it might relate to contractual arrangements or something like that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Under clause 14, given the language here which links the objectives of the corporation to the provincial government and the specific reference to Cabinet having to approve the sale of electricity and the rates outside of the province, will Cabinet have to approve Newfoundland Hydro's rate applications to the PUB before Hydro files them with the PUB?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I'm just going to go back to the previous question there. So that's, actually, not a change from pre-existing legislation. It was there previously. It's necessary to protect government from liabilities for the project so that they do not automatically roll up into government, which is the reason for the language.

The answer to this question is no.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Clause 24, this

section of legislation outlines the broad lines of business for Newfoundland Hydro. It includes reference to electricity, oil and gas, assets of Hydro, power purchase agreements, et cetera.

Because of the wide nature of the language here, MHAs may wish to ask about things such as Bull Arm, seismic, future load forecasts for electricity; Newfoundland Hydro's possible usage of wind generation; the need to create generation and, thus, invest in Bay d'Espoir and new thermal generation, et cetera.

Are these questions going to be allowed and answered, I guess, is the question?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I would say that the questions will always be allowed. Anybody can ask any question they want. The answers will all depend on different factors that can arise, for instance, Bull Arm. We're in a process right now for which we're not going to talk about it because we don't want to do anything that harms the process, but the big thing to keep in mind is that the asset is owned by the people of the province. So at some point, the people should get an answer to that, but it depends on timing sometimes.

But to me, questions can always be asked and the goal is, if anything, maybe this is not just an answer for this legislation, it's an answer for government in general. Answer whatever you can, up to the point where it causes an issue legally, financially or otherwise that stops you from having to give that information out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Under clause 30, the minister will be able to request information from the corporation which the corporation will have to provide to the minister.

Can the current minister outline if he has formally requested any information to date?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Off the top of my head that's not something I would have here. I know there's always correspondence going back and forth between us and Hydro. There's nothing top of mind that's standing out right now.

Again, any time there's an issue – like a couple of weeks ago there was a winter readiness briefing. I constantly have conversations with either Ms. Williams or different members of the team and people within. So off the top, I can't think of anything we've specifically requested, but I cannot say I have ever had a single incident where I felt that I didn't get the information that I wanted or somebody in the department or whoever wanted.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: In the interest of openness and transparency will the minister commit to tabling any formal information requests he makes under this

section and the responses that he receives from Hydro?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I have no issue tabling anything. Again, with the same caveat that I've always given, as long as it's not going to be detrimental or harmful and defeat the whole purpose of doing it. Keeping in mind, that I firmly believe that information that the public wants should be disclosed and put out there. So in theory, absolutely, not an issue, but in practice, there can always be one of those situations where you want to table it but it's really harmful to the people of the province by doing so. That's probably the best answer I can give you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Under clause 72, I heard the minister earlier say hopefully by the end of 2024. Do you have a more specific time frame for when the legislation is going to take effect?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I think it's supposed to be by year-end 2024, so as long as it's done by New Year's Eve to sort of coincide with the fiscal year, that is the game plan.

CHAIR: Any further?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

The bill alters reporting requirements for the amalgamated NL Hydro. NL Hydro must submit an annual report to the House of Assembly under the Hydro Corporation Act and also submit a report under the Transparency and Accountability Act . The reports were going to be about 90 per cent the same. But this current bill modifies the requirement that it's only going to be one merged report to the House of Assembly.

What was the rationale for that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: If I think correctly in what you're asking, I think that Nalcor used to make a submission and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro used to make a submission. Now you would just get one submission from the entire entity.

It doesn't change the reporting requirements. They still have to put the same information in front of the House on an annual basis; certainly, no intent to put less information there. It's just it's only one now and, obviously, Nalcor, if it's non-existent, is not going to put a report out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Yeah, just for clarification, there were two separate reports, it was the transparency and accountability report and then it was the corporations report. It's two different ones from NL Hydro.

What was the rationale for the idea of merging those two reports together?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: L ike you said, the reports were 90 per cent the same, so it's more efficient to have it all in the one shot and one report as opposed to continuing on with two, just from a labour perspective.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Yes, thank you, minister.

Under the current changes there now, there was Recommendation 11 from the Muskrat Falls inquiry asking for Nalcor to make changes to the Energy Corporation Act on how the board was structured.

In this current bill here now, there are no changes in

section 15. The board is going to be structured exactly the same as it was in the past.

What was the rationale for not going with that Muskrat Falls inquiry recommendation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I'd have to get a little more specific because I don't have – this report has been on the go now for a number of years. So when you say the change to requirements of the board, do you have a little more detail as to – because what we have now, we've gone from two boards to one. That board will still have the same number of members. That's a process that is ongoing. There's some work left to do there in terms of the appointing of board members and figuring that out. But in terms of – actually, I'm getting it here now.

Apparently, the Muskrat Falls inquiry report recommended that government people be put on a board, which is actually not best practice, and some of the recommendations weren't what they considered legal best practice. That's what they're saying here.

In my estimation, we're going to continue to have one board. It's going to continue to have an amount of expertise in a number of different areas, whether it's HR, whether it's legal, whether it's accounting, whether it's business, electrical engineering, which is what the constitution of the board is now.

As for not changing, that's the approach that we got from JPS.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: One of the recommendations was the Nalcor board have a minimum of nine, maximum of 11; another recommendation was that directors be chosen by the independent appointments process that is established by government; another recommendation was Nalcor directors are appointed for initial terms of three years and are allowed to serve a maximum of nine years.

These were Recommendation 11 from the Muskrat Falls inquiry. So these changes were not made. The board is going to be the exact same makeup from the Hydro Corporations Act or the Energy Corporations Act ,which both boards' structures for Nalcor and Hydro were essentially the same.

I'm just curious on why you never kind of went down the road of looking at Recommendation 11 from the Muskrat Falls inquiry.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: The first thing I can confirm is that the board actually is appointed by the IAC, which is something that we've talked about for some time.

I'm just trying to make sure I had the different points there, you want to know why we didn't do x, y and z. Maybe you could just repeat the different ones again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Sure.

The Nalcor board is a maximum of nine, a minimum of 11 members. That was one thing that was recommended.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: If I could jump in right now, I appreciate your willingness.

What we've gone is a max of 14 here, which, I think, is a best practice. What I can say is with a board like this, having sufficient people has proven to be a step in the right direction. I don't think from a corporate point of view, having a few extra people is necessarily a negative practice.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Another one was Nalcor directors appointed for an initial term of three years and a maximum of nine years. That was another recommendation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I'll wait for, again, some commentary from the Department of Justice on the term length.

Again, it's not something that sticks out to me in terms of what was there and what we have now. We haven't had an issue there. My experience with the appointment of boards is that you don't want to have board members that are around forever, but, at the same time, you want to allow for continuity and you want to allow for overlap as well.

What they're also saying is that three years from the complexity of the deals that Hydro deals with, three years is actually not enough time in many cases. So they're saying we should go longer than that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

That's fair. I was just curious on why these recommendations from the inquiry weren't followed, but if it makes sense, you're working in the hydro thing.

I guess the final thing is, with the changes to ATIPPA and the definition and narrowing in the definition, undo consequence into that, are there any other – with commercial sensitivity, with the hydrocarbons, if that was considered a best practice, I guess, for a legal perspective?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I think, again, the big thing with the hydrocarbons, which was there and we've continued on with now – and, in fact, I think it was also one of the recommendations – is that, again, we're dealing with other multiple partners in many of these companies and we have access to their information, which is why we kept it the same.

Internally or externally, we haven't had a lot of push back on that. That hasn't led to any issues. In fact, we've ensured that information is protected. The big one, obviously, that we're dealing with here when you think about it is that we're dealing with the megaproject that went off the rails and there were a bunch of concerns from many different levels.

I think the legislation allows, now, for those questions to be asked and for that information to be provided, again, subject to the same exemptions that are under ATIPPA.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

No further questions?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, just to clarify a couple of things that I brought up in second reading. First of all, I just want to say that I never got to the briefing; I wanted to be there but, unfortunately, I got dragged away, kind of, unexpectedly, and I guess I misread this.

Just for my confirmation, what I'm hearing you say, Minister, now is that when it comes to all matters NL Hydro, if you will, and of course barring legit – I'm going to say legit – commercial sensitivity and so on, HR whatever, barring that, it is going to work just like a government entity now and it is going to be the Privacy Commissioner, not the CEO, just denying whatever he or she wants to, with no reasons given. It will be just like core government. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: The best way to put it, probably the simplest way to put it, is that everything but the oil and gas is subject to the regular ATIPPA provisions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Perfect. Well, that's excellent. I'm more supportive now than ever; that's excellent. No, it really is. I'm so glad to hear that.

The other point that I kind of raised around the salaries and I only raised it because – first of all, I want to say when I'm talking about these salaries and so on at NL Hydro, I'm not referring to the linesmen and so on. That's never been the issue. The issue has been, I'll call them, the suits for a lack of a better terminology, the crowd that we're all very familiar with, the crowd that would have been on the stand at the Muskrat Falls inquiry and some of the lucrative deals that happened there.

I only raise it because at the time when the Auditor General came out with her report and she was, I guess, critical of some of that. I'm sure I did hear Ms. Williams – and I have no issue with her, by the way, either - say she didn't necessarily agree with all the points the Auditor General was making on the salaries and the impression I was left with was that nothing is changing. But I think I've heard you say that indeed some things have changed and just to confirm that that is the case.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: So two things there: Yes, I mean in terms of the higher-ups of Hydro, Nalcor, with the coming together, there has been 50 per cent reduction in that and there's been a change in many of the things we've talked about before: car allowances, bonuses and things like that.

The one thing I will say – and, again, probably not politically popular but very real – the talent required to run NLH or OilCo or any of these groups, we're not worried about losing them to other people in Newfoundland and Labrador; I'm worried about losing them to other entities within Canada, bigger entities paying vastly more. That's the reality.

When you're talking about a utility providing power to the majority of this province, they are not the same as a minister or a deputy minister. I don't think it's an accurate comparison of core government versus utility. I'm not saying people are going to agree with me, and that's their right. They have the right to disagree, but one of the realities we have – and we're seeing it all the time – is that people in many roles – in fact, far below the ones we're sort of talking about here. We're competing against out of province and other entities who are paying far more for that skill set and we have to compete.

So I think the big thing – and I think me and you are like-minded on this – is that there was a culture within that organization of Nalcor that didn't care about what you thought or I thought or many people thought. I think with these changes over the last number of years, especially with the internal culture changes, I don't think it's the same feeling. I feel there's a true accountability there now.

I can't speak about what others felt like, but I honestly feel that this is a group that's accountable, and they should be accountable politically as well to the department. There's always going to be a changeover. If I'm not in this seat, there's going to be someone else. If there's change in government, at the end of the day, what the people can hold onto is that they put us in our seats and if they don't like the decisions we make with respect to a utility or anything else, they can change us out. That's why these groups have to be accountable to the Legislature.

So that's how I feel. I do feel this is a step in the right direction. Again, that's not saying that there won't be more changes required down the road but, right now, I feel like we're at a good spot on that front.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: I thank the minister for that and I agree. I think the word that we're kind of looking for here is a culture of entitlement, perhaps, is an accurate word. I think that people, in general – there are always going to be people, no matter what, that are going to raise issues about salaries and so on. We hear it all time, even as MHAs.

I think most people understand that you have to pay for talent and you have to pay for education, experience and so on, but I think that when you do so, you expect things to operate competently. When you see incompetence happening, such as the things that happened with DarkNL and all that kind of stuff, I think that's what really rubs people the wrong way.

It's like here we are paying all this money for all these, what people would consider, lucrative salaries and you can't even keep the lights on, and then you're coming up with all these excuses and we're seeing all this stuff with embedded contractors and no controls in place. So it's one thing to pay somebody if they're doing a good job. When you're paying them all that money and they're perceived, at least, as not doing a good job, that's when it becomes an even bigger problem with the public in general.

Minister, one final question. I think you did say it in your response in the second but, again, I believe you said – and it was music to my ears as well – no more embedded contractors.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: That's not mentioned in the legislation, to my knowledge. That's a practice right now by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro where they go through procurement or RFP process on all this.

I think there were some issues back during that project where none of that was in place, and right now there's an accountability. Again, every year, they have to put reports here in the House and if that was an issue, they know it's going to be raised. That doesn't mean that they're not going to have to hire. They always hire contractors; they're going to have to hire contractors and that would be the case.

What it comes down to is the same thing, is being able to show the value for money, being able to show a readiness to understand the needs of the people when it comes to spending, because every dollar we spend there is a dollar that can be elsewhere.

So right now, going back to the leadership of Ms. Williams and her team, that hasn't been an issue. They've changed that practice and, again, any questions on that can also always be readily obtained from them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: This is my last, last question. As we're having the conversation, it sparks more thoughts.

I'm just wondering about accountability, and when I say accountability, for individuals. One of the things that I think really rubbed people the wrong way, including myself and I'm sure yourself, as well, was the fact that when we had, for example, the Muskrat Falls inquiry and there are individuals that were involved and named and we hear the stuff that went on, yet everybody walked away with the golden handshake and so on, and nobody is ever held to account.

The concept of you're being fired with cause, because you have legitimate cause, a lot of people in the public would say that, when it comes to government entities and so on, that concept doesn't exist. It exists everywhere else, that if you do a bad job, your employer has the right to end your employment with cause, but when it comes to these organizations, the perception at least is that everybody walks away and nobody is ever held accountable.

So I'm just wondering in terms of the set-up now and new people being hired and so on, is that issue even being talked about or discussed or mechanisms put in through HR that if somebody actually screws up royally that they can simply be given a pink slip with cause?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: I'm not sure if it's possible to put a specific provision in that would cover off your concerns, because they're more broad than they are specific and there are a bunch of different things here.

One, there's a PUB oversight on everything that they do. There's an accountability there. As well, whenever they put in an application, Newfoundland Power actually has the ability to go over it, look at it, question it. The Consumer Advocate has that ability.

You will remember the PUB didn't have much of an affec