PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

May 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 28

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

welcome to the public galleries today Heather Modlin and Dave Martin from

Key Assets who are present for the reading of a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Members' statements today

are the Members for the Districts of Bonavista, Mount Pearl Southlands,

Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main and Cape St.

Francis.

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

got your back, Fort Mac! That has been the rallying cry from people across

Canada and especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past two

weeks. The devastating wildfires in Northern Alberta have affected most, if

not all, communities in our province. That is true for my hometown of

Catalina in the municipality of Trinity Bay North. My childhood friend Ryan

Duffett and his family were one of those who lost everything.

This

moved the children of Trinity Bay North, led by Keiara and Karlee Paul,

young cousins of Ryan, to do something to help. Beginning on Sunday, May 8,

and continuing until yesterday afternoon, these kind-hearted kids held bake

and lemonade sales at various locations throughout our community, a raffle

on all the fixings of a traditional Newfoundland turkey dinner, won by

Sharon Donovan of Melrose, and a BBQ. All proceeds from these events are

going to the Canadian Red Cross and, to date, they have raised over $900,

with donations still coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

I ask all hon. Members to

join with me in congratulating the children of Trinity Bay North, parents

Krista Diamond and Shannon White, and all those who provided support to this

worthy cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize several outstanding

young people in my community. The 26th Annual Mount Pearl Focus on Youth

Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the great talent,

athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing youth.

These individuals included: Mount Pearl Female Youth of the Year, Victoria

Jackman; Male Youth of the Year, Michael Howse; Youth Volunteer of the Year,

Megan Glover; Male Youth Speak Off Award winner, Michael Howse; Female Youth

Speak Off Award winner, Elizabeth Tulk; STEM Award winner, Emily Wiseman;

Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Liam Hickey; Female Youth Athlete of the

Year, Sarah Hiscock; Youth Sports Team of the Year, the Mount Pearl Senior

High Huskies Male Soccer Team; Official of the Year, Ashley Hammond; RNC

Youth In Service Award winner, Ryan Linstead; Youth Group of the Year, the

O'Donel High Robotics Team; Performing Arts Individual Award winner, Joseph

Coffin; Visual Arts Award winner, Shea O'Keefe; and Literary Arts Award

winner, Breanna Sheppard.

addition, there were Performing Arts recognition awards presented to the

Mount Pearl Show Choir, the O'Donel Jazz Band, the cast of Etcetera 29, the

Mount Pearl Senior High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Traditional Band

and the cast of the Mount Pearl Senior High Musical,

You're a Good Man Charlie Brown .

would ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating all

these individuals on their accomplishment. Our future is in good hands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2016 graduating class of

Menihek High School in Labrador West. I had the honour of attending the

graduation this past weekend and witnessed first-hand the joy and

anticipation in the eyes of the 102 young men and women who appear ready to

take on the world.

The

graduation theme was a quote from Walt Disney himself: All our dreams can

come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. Very fitting, Mr.

Speaker, at a time when our world requires courage to make the right choices

and the right decisions.

The

graduating class initiated a collection for Fort McMurray during the

graduation ceremonies and collected $800 for the cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

I would also like to

recognize the teachers and staff of Menihek High, in particular Principal

Fraser Drover and Vice-Principal Eugene Costello, who have shown tremendous

leadership to the students of Menihek. Both the school and the communities

of Labrador West are fortunate to have them guiding our students in the

right direction.

ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the class of 2016 at

Menihek High School and wish them every success in their studies that lie

ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Saturday, May 7, we lost a great man. John Gibson was, until the last

election, a constituent of mine. More important, he was one of the most

tireless and passionate voices behind the restoration of the city's river

systems, including the Rennies River in St. John's East Quidi Vidi, as

well as the Waterford and Virginia Rivers.

John

retired from DFO in 1997, but he never retired from science, continuing to

record his observations and to publish in both news media and scientific

journals. His final paper was accepted by a journal just days before his

death.

John

Gibson, to quote his obituary, cared deeply about pristine rivers and

lakes, tree cover and natural debris for fish cover, no development along

riverbanks, natural streams left above ground, biodiversity and

sustainability, honesty in science and politics, and preservation of habitat

amongst many other issues.

On a

personal note, I was always impressed with John's lack of fear in standing

up for nature against what others thought was the inevitable path of

development, using scientific facts and data to support his argument.

sincere condolences to Judy, Caroline and Mary Jane.

ask all hon. Members to salute the great scientific legacy of John Gibson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

salute Roncalli Central High of Avondale. This high school just concluded

their annual graduation ceremonies.

wish to highlight that this was yet another safe grad event. Events such as

this, can only take place with the support of the community, the volunteers,

parents and, of course, teacher and staff involvement.

sponsoring this event, the graduates came to realize that you can have a

good time with friends, family and staff without drugs and alcohol.

Long-term, thoughtful planning of events and activities throughout the

night, ensured a safe time for all.

this time, while many of our province's Level 3 students are about to host

their own graduation celebrations, I ask all Members in this hon. House to

join with me in wishing them a safe grad, a night filled with enjoyment and

pride in their accomplishments, and every success in their futures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

rise in this hon. House today to recognize the newest Lions Club in the

province, the first one in the past 20 years.

May 7, the Torbay Lions Club had their first charter night celebrations,

hosted at the Pouch Cove Lions Club, attended by family and friends from

Torbay, Pouch Cove and Flatrock.

Torbay Lions Club projects for 2015-16 were: host a bingo at the North Pond

Manor for seniors; assisted in serving Santa breakfast at Holy Trinity

Elementary; entered a float at the Christmas parade and collected food for

the food bank; participated in an awareness campaign at the Christmas market

at Jack Byrne Arena to fundraise for community groups; served brunch at the

Gathering Place for world hunger week; donated 100 pairs of eyeglasses to

Bishops Falls Correctional Centre eyeglasses recycling program.

The

club donated a total of $1,600 to local groups and Lions Club International

including: the Torbay food bank, the Holy Trinity Elementary breakfast

program, Pathfinders, the Gathering Place, White Cane project and the

diabetic campaign.

ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Torbay Lions Club

on their first year and wishing them many more.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would like to welcome

to our public galleries today as well, former member Percy Barrett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration of the

First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

For Honour 100 today, we have the Member for the District of Lewisporte

Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

I will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost

their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the

Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine.

This will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we forget: Robert North, Edward Noseworthy, Herman

Noseworthy, William Noseworthy, William Nurse, Henry Oake, Augustus O'Brien,

Edward O'Brien, James O'Brien, James John O'Brien, Justin O'Brien, Michael

G. O'Brien, Patrick O'Brien, William Vincent O'Brien, Felix O'Connell,

Albert O'Driscoll, Michael Joseph O'Flynn, John Joseph Ogden, Edward

O'Keefe, Thomas Joseph O'Keefe, William Joseph O'Keefe, Hubert Oldford,

James Joseph O'Leary, William Ollerhead, Joseph Olsen, Ambrose A. O'Neill,

John St. John O'Neill, Michael Joseph O'Neill ,

Patrick O'Neill, William O'Neill, William O'Reilly, John Organ, John

O'Rourke, John O'Rourke, Reuben Osborne, James Osbourne, Cecil Osmond,

Douglas McNeil Osmond, Gerald Augustus Osmond and William Osmond.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

we begin National Police Week, it was an honour this morning to help kick

off the Women in Leadership Law Enforcement session being held at the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary's Memorial campus in St. John's.

Twenty intelligent and ambitious women from the RNC, RCMP, Fish and Wildlife

Enforcement Division, Sheriff's Office and Adult Custody are participating

in the program this week which is based on the Legacy Leadership model. It

certainly was a pleasure to have the opportunity to meet with them this

morning.

The

goal is to encourage female leadership in law enforcement agencies and to

develop networks among women who work in law enforcement. The 20 women I

spoke to this morning have been identified as leaders or emerging leaders by

their respective organizations and the session will be highly interactive

and experiential.

Mr.

Speaker, while we have come a long way in terms of gender equity in law

enforcement in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is still plenty of work to

do; particularly in the senior ranks. Our hope is that programs such as this

will result in more women in leadership roles.

Law

enforcement careers are stressful and strong leadership talent is critical

to ensuring the safety and security of our communities. The women

participating in this week's training have been encouraged to use the

knowledge and skills they gain to become talented leaders and mentors to

those they supervise.

Mr.

Speaker, good leaders are sometimes hard to find to find. I believe all the

women participating this week have great potential and I look forward to

seeing them advance in their careers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. On behalf of the

Official Opposition, I would like to recognize May 15-21, 2016, as National

Police Week in our country.

Mr.

Speaker, programs such as the Women in Leadership Law Enforcement session

are valuable to the policing enforcement industry in our province. These

programs inspire women who attend to take on leadership roles within their

respective organizations. These programs also give them valuable mentoring

and networking opportunities that they would not find elsewhere.

we all know, we have not yet obtained gender equality in law enforcement.

While programs like this help to inspire women to reach for the top, there's

plenty more that needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I agree with the

minister that while we have come a long way in gender equity in law

enforcement, we still have a long way to go. For too long the senior ranks

of law enforcement have been almost exclusively men. For the service to

change for the better, we need more gender equity in senior ranks.

Good

luck to these 20 courageous and committed women. We need their energy,

insight and leadership.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The

hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, as we

continue to face a shortage of family-based placements for children and

youth in care in certain regions, I am pleased to rise today to highlight a

creative approach that is helping to increase these placement options.

Recently, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services entered into an

agreement with Key Assets Newfoundland and Labrador to establish the Key

Assets' Family-Based Pilot Project. This project provides family-based

placements for children and youth in care who have a range of complex needs

and/or are part of a sibling group.

Mr.

Speaker, through this project, Key Assets recruits, assesses and trains

those providing care, as well as provides 24-hour wraparound supports. Our

social workers monitor these homes and the children and youth placed in

them, as well as work closely with Key Assets to develop in care plans for

these children and youth. To date, 13 children have been matched and eight

homes approved.

are pleased to continue collaborating with Key Assets, a non-profit

organization providing residential and family-based care and support

services to young people and families with complex needs.

Mr.

Speaker, through budget 2016-17, we have reiterated our commitment to

ensuring the protection and well-being of children and youth. We will

continue to focus on further enhancing child and youth care through an

investment of approximately $150 million for child protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I thank the minister for

an advance copy of her statement. We all recognize the challenges that exist

with having a sufficient number of appropriate placements for children and

youth.

Today's announcement of a Family-Based Care Pilot Project has been in the

works for quite some time and we are very pleased to see this finally come

to fruition.

I'd

like to take this opportunity to thank Key Assets, our non-profit community

partner, an organization with a wonderful reputation and track record in

providing residential and family-based care and support to young people and

families with complex needs. We must also recognize that none of these

initiatives would be possible without the knowledge, creativity and

dedication of the senior staff at CYFS, who I hear did a fantastic job of

taking this idea and making it a reality.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I'm glad to

see Key Assets' pilot project is making strides in providing a supportive

home environment for children with complex needs and children who are part

of sibling groups. It is good new approaches are being tried to give

children a home as an alternative to other types of residential care.

Bravo to the eight families who have opened their homes to children in these

circumstances. I thank them for their generosity and commitment. The more

support resources these families and children can receive, the better.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance has included a $30 million contingency

reserve in the budget for the first time since 2002. In the Estimates book

there's a description of each line item and a count by department. The $30

million contingency fund does not include this.

Could the minister outline for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what

exactly this fund is for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

thank the Member opposite for the question. When we met in the House the

last time the House was open, we were debating in Committee of the Whole. As

part of that debate, the Member opposite asked that question and I provided

him a number of examples; things such as disasters that would happen, things

that would be unforeseen that may happen.

The

contingency fund provides an opportunity for us to make sure that on the sad

chance that some community in our province may go through something like a

Fort McMurray experience or a tsunami or other things, we want to make sure

that we had a contingency fund. I think I've provided the Member opposite

with a large number of those answers last Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

acknowledge we asked the questions, but we're talking here about the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm asking on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, the

minister mentioned disaster relief and items like that.

ask her, for certain circumstances, why wouldn't you have that in a line

item in Municipal Affairs or Fire and Emergency Services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

the Member opposite certainly is aware, Municipal Affairs as well as Fire

and Emergency Services has the responsibility for providing support to

communities. Finance has the responsibility for making sure that we have

monies available on a contingency basis, should things happen in our

community that are unforeseen not singularly related to impacts on

community, but there might be other things that might happen.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if we knew the exact things that would be

unforeseen, we would have detailed that out in the budget document.

Providing a prudent amount of money in the Estimates to be approved by this

House, we think, is being very transparent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in the Estimates process line-by-line line departments, things are

described and there are

definitions given of what funds would actually be

used for. What we have here, since 2001, there's never been this type of a

contingency fund or number on the books, with no description of what it's

going to be used for. In the fiscal situation we're in this year, certainly

there are a lot of community groups, a lot of people in Newfoundland and

Labrador, services and programs are going to be checked.

ask again to the minister: What are you going to use this $30 million for,

and why is there no description in the Estimates on what it is going to be

used for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you to the

Member opposite for the opportunity to stand up again and provide some

additional insight into the contingency fund; things like potential legal

claims, forest fires, increases in caseloads in a variety of departments.

There could be all kinds of things related to communities that may happen in

the next year.

While the former administration may have thought that planning a contingency

fund was irresponsible, we believe that being transparent with that amount

of money in the budget is a prudent thing to do. Certainly, as I also

explained, that information would be provided to the House within three days

of the expenditure being approved, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the

minister is not going to tell us what she is going to spend the $30 million,

but she says she is going to make it available to the House. So what will

happen, it will go to Treasury Board, it will go through Cabinet, they'll

make a decision how it's going to be spent, then they'll come to the House

and tell us. What they should be doing is right here in Estimates in the

House telling us how they're spending $30 million.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Thirty million dollars, as I said, with the

fiscal challenges we're facing, how about reinvesting $5.1 million to

eliminate the Liberal choice to increase class cap sizes? How about $3.6

million of these funds to remove the Liberal choice to combine grades? How

about reinstating $1 million to keep the libraries open? Why aren't these

good choices, Finance Minister, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we have

no idea at this point the number of legal cases, the potential increase in

caseloads, what might happen through natural or other incidents in our

community.

This

amount of money is put aside. It will not be spent in the absence of due

diligence providing the details to the Members of this House. It is a

practice that has been underway in many jurisdictions, including our own up

until the former administration decided not to do it. We felt that it was

important to have this contingency fund available so that instead of

expecting the budget to run over, as the former administration would, that

we would have a modest amount of money that would be able to provide for

contingencies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going to be asked to vote on the $30 million here in the

budget process.

So I

ask the minister: In your process of deciding how are you going to use these

funds, how are you going to decide? When are you going to let us know when

you use the funds? Is it after it goes through Cabinet and you make the

decision, or are you going to make it public what the consideration is in

spending this $30 million sometime in the next fiscal year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

thank the Member opposite for the opportunity to speak to this again.

Providing transparency around any expenditure related to this contingency

fund is very important. As I mentioned last week when we were discussing

this as the Committee of the Whole, the requirement would be that the

spending amount or the expenditure would be tabled in this House within

three days. Certainly, that is what we intend to do.

Unforeseen circumstances are exactly what that word indicates, unforeseen,

and we want to make sure that the people of the province know that we expect

to be held accountable, and we know we will be, in this House of Assembly

when we present that information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the $30 million could have been used to prevent budget cuts.

ask the minister, could she consider reinstating the $4.9 million to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription Program for over-the-counter

medications and diabetic test strips? How about reinstating $2.5 million

through government aid to reduce adult dental coverage? Are these issues

that are important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that can be

considered or are we just going to keep this $30 million flush fund there?

We don't know how it's going to be spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

just find it kind of odd that the Member opposite is asking these types of

questions for emergency funding. Mr. Speaker, as we said, it's a contingency

fund. Forest fires; we could have a major forest fire in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

the Member is willing to keep going on this line, I'll ask him one question.

When you had $2.3 in your emergency funding last year, as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, why didn't you bring it to the House what you were going

to use it for? Do you know the reason why? He didn't know what he was going

to use it for because it's for emergency funding.

When

he passed the budget last year, this Member, the same one who's asking the

question, could not come to this House over $2 million and say, here's

what we're going to use it for, Mr. Speaker, because it's for emergency

funding. He's well aware because he was the minister who had the money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

ask for all Members to respect the individual who has been recognized to

speak. If Members can't respect the Member who's recognized to speak, that

Member may not be recognized to speak when they stand.

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another day, another protest in our province. Just a half hour ago, hundreds

of nurses marched in front of this Legislature. The Premier has previously

stated that he will make nurses work harder.

ask the Minister of Health: How many nursing positions will be eliminated

from the health care system as a result of this recent budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for

the question, Mr. Speaker.

The

nurses are an integral backbone of the health care system in this province,

both in the community and in acute care. The gentleman opposite will have

had access to the Estimates documents just like everybody else.

There will be 41.28 FTEs removed from nursing this year as a result of

rationalization and attrition, some of which was started by his government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, he can call

it rationalization or attrition. He can call it whatever he wants, the

bottom line is he is eliminating critical nursing positions from our health

care facilities.

What

about budget number two, Mr. Speaker: How many nursing jobs can we

anticipate being slashed and gutted from the public service in the budget

that's coming this fall?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you

for the question.

Rationalization means to expose to reason. What we have done is we have

taken programs in the past which have been shown scientifically to have no

evidence to support them and we have reallocated the money from those. It is

natural that some of those FTEs will disappear. Whether that will result in

job losses will entirely depend on a process, as he knows, called collective

bargaining and labour rights and that will work its way through the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the Finance

Minister and the Health Minister love to talk about FTEs while we're talking

about nurses and we're talking about people and how their lives are going to

be impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

On a related note,

related to nurses, I ask the Minister of Health: What are you doing to make

the work environment for our nurses healthier instead of simply making their

work environment smaller?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for

the opportunity to answer this question. We actually have a joint committee,

whose acronym I forget. It essentially involves the registered nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador sitting down with government and the regional

health authorities to discuss the nature of the work environment, how we can

improve that and ensure it's safe for them and all users of the health care

system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, other than

the handful of ABCs, the agencies, boards and commissions that will go

through the Appointments Commission, Bill 1 does not require the new Liberal

Appointments Commission to rank the three names they submit to Cabinet.

Will

the government agree to an amendment to Bill 1 that will direct the

Appointments Commission to rank the candidates whose names they submit to

Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand here and speak to Bill 1, the Independent Appointments

Commission, which, as the Member knows, we will be discussing in Committee

in this House today. We're willing to listen to all the amendments that the

Members will put forward as we go into the Committee stage today.

However, I would note that I did ask over a month and a half ago if the

Opposition had any suggestions that they would like to see. I wish they had

forwarded them earlier, but we will consider them as we move through

Committee today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for his response. This bill has not been discussed in

this House for over a month and a half. We were advised this morning that we

will be going into Committee today. I have all of our amendments right here,

Mr. Speaker, and I'm happy to give them to the minister right now and happy

to work with him as we run through the debate.

Bill

1 will allow the Cabinet to ignore the names submitted by their Appointments

Commission and appoint someone else in secrecy.

Will

the government amend Bill 1 to require the Cabinet to make a public

disclosure every time the person they appoint is not on the list of

candidates recommended by the commission?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Just

going back to the first point the Member referenced, I emailed the

Opposition on March 23 and it said: Why don't you submit your amendments so

we can discuss them and consider them and put some thought into whether they

can improve the bill? The Opposition didn't take the opportunity to forward

that until right this moment in the House of Assembly.

The

purpose of this Legislature is to discuss legislation in the hopes of making

it better so that we can have the best legislation. I would submit we're

very proud to forward this piece of legislation into the House. Before we

had this legislation what you had were individuals getting appointed to

prominent positions based on who they knew, and not necessarily were they

the best selection for this position. So I look forward to the amendments

that the Members have as we discuss this in Committee today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, Committee of

the Whole is the opportunity to introduce amendments; that process isn't

starting until today. If government was serious about considering amendments

to Bill 1, it would take this flawed piece of legislation and refer the

entire thing to a Committee of this House for review by all Members.

Bill

1 will allow the Cabinet to bypass their Appointments Commission whenever

circumstances are deemed to be urgent or extenuating.

Would the government agree to an amendment that would require the Cabinet to

notify the public immediately whenever it bypasses the Appointments

Commission to make an appointment in such circumstances?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Again, Committee is the opportunity to discuss this, but I would like to

thank the Members of the NDP who, when I emailed them, came forward with

their suggestions some time ago so that we could discuss them. I would like

to thank the NDP for doing this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, the purpose is

to have the best piece of legislation. I am looking forward to considering

these amendments. But before we can say what we're going to do, I'd like to

even read the amendment as opposed to being asked a question in the House of

Assembly right here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, as I said,

the minister is welcome to see all of the amendments. I've commented on some

of the intended amendments publicly previously.

Bill

1 calls for a review of the act every five years, a review that would be

sent to Cabinet.

Would the government, in the interest of openness and accountability, agree

to an amendment that would send this review, not to Cabinet, but to the

Speaker of this House for public release?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, I can probably

give the same answer now that I'll give, depending on how many amendments

they put forward, is we look forward to listening to their amendments and to

the rationale behind them. I certainly won't make a snap judgement on this

very important piece of legislation, something that is new in this province

and we've never seen before.

look forward to seeing the amendments that the Member puts forward; however,

I would note one thing. They are putting forward suggestions based on a

piece of legislation, one that they never put in when they were there for 12

years. In those cases, Cabinet put in who they wanted. They put it in based

on the name that they thought; there was no consideration by anybody,

whether it was the Public Service Commission, an Independent Appointments

Commission. This was totally Cabinet-based.

appreciate the fact that they're trying to fix the flawed process that they

had.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

What we're trying to do,

Mr. Speaker, is fix a flawed piece of legislation that is a complete joke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

They're talking about an

Independent Appointments Commission. The commission is anything but

independent and guess what? It can't even make appointments.

Mr.

Speaker, will government consider an amendment to Bill 1 that will require

annual reviews to determine whether the merit principle was applied in every

case that an appointment was made? Would the government agree to have this

review published in the interest of openness, transparency and

accountability?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, again, I

look forward to hearing the amendments that the Members put forward, as they

do so in the Committee process.

Again, I wish we could have had an opportunity to review them over the last

month-and-a-half that we had prior to this coming back to the House. I'm

willing to consider any amendment that they put forward here in this House

so we can discuss it to make sure we have the best piece of legislation.

The

fact is we have to listen to these suggestions because we do want the best

piece of legislation possible. Either way, even if it's flawed it's going to

be 10 times better than the process that the Opposition had when they were

in government, which was nothing. It was based on who you knew.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Following the devastating fire at the fish plant in Bay de Verde the Premier

said we will do whatever is needed. If there's a role for the province,

we'll be there. We'll step up and we'll be there for the people. Clearly,

the province has not been there.

ask the minister: Where are you for the Town of Bay de Verde?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

was at that meeting. I went to Bay de Verde with the Premier and the

Minister of Fisheries. We met with Quinlans. It was very devastating. We

understand the impact it's going to have on the communities and surrounding

areas. We did meet with the mayor, later with the council.

What

the mayor said to us: He would like to have income supplement, a top up.

Where they are used to probably 60 hours a week, now they may only get 40 or

50. But the mayor did also add, in front of 15 people: I know there's no

program available. I just want to put a human side to the face.

That's what the mayor said in the meeting, and he understood this, we

understood this. What we said to the mayor and to the council, at the end of

the year, if there are people who need any help with employment generation,

we would do it through the community enhancement program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Wow, Mr. Speaker. It

was a big media day when we saw the Premier, the minister and the Member go

out, and they were going to do everything for the area.

Friday, the Mayor of Bay de Verde was quoted in the media as saying his

pleas to the province have fallen on deaf ears.

So I

ask the minister: The mayor it out pleading to the province, why aren't you

answering the mayor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I understand

politics. It's to a new point when you are using the tragedy in Bay de Verde

to try to get political points. It is, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

What the Member opposite is talking about was said a month ago. I just had

an interview with CBC with Lindsay Bird; she took this story that was a

month old. This story was a month old when the mayor we let it ride until

Lindsay Bird asked me for an interview. What we said is we would help the

town. There hasn't been one additional request not one request made to

my department since that initial media report back when we met with them,

Mr. Speaker.

We're helping. We're working with Quinlans, Mr. Speaker. We committed to

Quinlans. We offered assistance. We are available to it. I say if you're

going to do media reports, go back when it first started a month ago, not

last Friday, when it initially came out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals

have stated they would spend half a million dollars to create an office for

a seniors' advocate. Groups in every corner of the province are stating that

your budget will be devastating to seniors and you turn a deaf ear.

ask the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development: You won't

listen to the seniors who are crying out to you now, why should seniors

believe that you'll listen to an advocate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Seniors,

Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker,

Budget 2016 provides support to programs and services for seniors.

We consulted with groups and they asked for an office of the seniors'

advocate. It's not a luxury, it's a need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, every Member

of this House should be an advocate for the seniors they represent, and

fight against the Liberal budget that will bring them hardship.

Would the minister consider delaying the hiring of a seniors' advocate and

reinvesting the $500,000 budgeted to remove some of the burden on your

seniors? Your government has clearly demonstrated that you don't listen

anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I take

exception to the Member opposite's insinuation that in this budget we didn't

consider how important seniors are in our province, quite frankly. We

implemented a Newfoundland Income Supplement. We enhanced the Seniors'

Benefit. We committed to creating the office of the seniors' advocate when

Members opposite last year spent hours in this House debating that that was

a luxury a luxury.

Quite frankly, that's shameful. For that Member there to say today that a

seniors' advocate is not important in this province, I hope that she

continues to maintain that when her constituents ask her why she's backing

away from a seniors' advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'll remind Members again

that the Member that's been recognized to speak should be given the floor. I

ask Members to respect that.

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Liberal's election platform stated the Liberal government would generate $50

million in revenue this year from selling unused government assets.

ask the minister: What assets have been sold? Why didn't they follow his

party's election platform and contain this revenue in the budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the question. One of the things we have done is we make sure

that we're going to be optimizing all of the resources and assets we have.

Part of my plan, over the next little while, we're putting together a real

estate optimization plan. We're doing a complete and total inventory of all

the buildings we have.

We've already started to make some changes within our department to try to

school board, we're moving them out, so we're doing some rearranging.

What

we will be doing is we will be optimizing the amount of money we can get

from some of the assets that we will be disposing of, and that will be over

the next little while. We will certainly keep the House up to date on how

the progress will be going in that particular area, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for his response. A promised asset optimization plan

this was a promise made to the public and there was a dollar figure out on

it. It's nice to know we're doing an asset optimization plan and we're

analyzing all our assets, but I have to ask the minister: Was the $50

million figure an election tactic or was it a real promise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

will tell you one of the promises we'll make to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador is that we will get as much revenue as we possibly can from any

of the assets we have to dispose of. One of the things we want to make sure

is that every person who is living in Newfoundland and Labrador will get a

return on what we have.

do have some concern, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of inventory that has

been in the previous administration, buildings that were purchased and we

have areas that we do not have full capacity. So part of my mandate is to

make sure all of those areas, the inventory is done, any space that we can

utilize within the existing, and we may be in a position to dispose of

property.

That's the plan. That's the optimization we're going to be making. That's

what I'm going to be doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Deficit Reduction Levy extracts a higher percentage of income from low- and

middle-income Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than it does from higher

income people. I understand the Premier's position that the levy is

temporary. I have never asked whether it is permanent or temporary.

ask the Minister of Finance how this government justifies this regressive

form of taxation, which puts a heavier burden on low- and middle-income

earners than it does on higher income earners.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the

Member opposite asks a question about the temporary deficit levy, a levy

that we felt was important to make part of our entire suite of, sadly, the

tax increases we had to undertake as a result of the mismanagement of the

former administration.

This

type of levy is not unusual for jurisdictions that are faced with the

economic and fiscal realities that our government is. When we look at the

progressivity of the entire personal income tax, I can assure the Member

opposite that taken in conjunction with the levy and the personal income

tax, our tax is progressive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

say to the minister that their levy is an unfair tax. It flies in the face

of regressive taxation principles.

So I

ask the Minister of Finance: What is it about the tax being temporary that

in any way diminishes its unfairness?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

not sure if the Member opposite heard me or if she is using selective

hearing today. The progressiveness of the tax is the deficit levy in

conjunction with the personal income tax; 38 per cent of the people in the

province won't be paying the deficit levy. The average, for about 40 per

cent or less, is less than $340.

The

Member opposite can certainly continue to discuss and will I'm sure the

temporariness of this deficit levy, but I can assure the people of the

province that our intention is to remove this levy as quickly as we can when

we get a better management on the fiscal situation of this province, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

minister didn't hear me. I would like to say that I have asked the minister

to ask the Premier to provide the documentation to the House to support his

claim that 35 per cent of taxpayers pay 88 per cent of all taxes in this

province. He claimed it. We'd like to see the documentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, if the

Member opposite is looking for a stratification of taxpayers, we can

certainly provide her that information. I think we can provide it for her,

no problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, Nobel

laureate economist Paul Krugman said every country that introduced

significant austerity has seen its economy suffer. All of the economic

research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited

totally discredited.

ask the minister: Why is she enforcing an austerity budget in spite of all

this expertise and evidence, and further crippling our economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we have

the highest debt per capita of any province in Canada. We have some of the

lowest ratings when it comes to being able to borrow money. We have some of

the smallest population. We're the second, I believe, smallest population in

Canada with the largest geographical area to service. If the Member opposite

doesn't understand the fiscal situation that we are in, she should really

take a look at the reality of the financial results of this province.

have the highest debt per GDP. We have the highest debt per capita. People

of the province cannot afford they cannot afford the borrowing that we

were going to put on the heads of our children, Mr. Speaker, which would be

somewhere in the vicinity of $53,000 per person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

is ignoring the most brilliant economic minds in the whole world.

Mr.

Speaker, running the provincial economy is not like running a business. It

is not only about money in money out, nor can you solve deficits simply by

slashing with a red pen. In government, if you cut spending you may save

money but you also have a negative impact on the overall economy and you put

people out of work.

ask the minister: Can she explain how her cuts to date have improved the

employment situation in the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, for the

first part of the Members

preamble, one of the reasons why we presented the

people of the province with a seven year plan to bring the province back to

surplus was with a reverence for the pace of change that our province can

undertake to bring us back to surplus. Quite frankly, those discussions and

decisions weren't made in the absence of understanding that there is an

economic impact, Mr. Speaker, and we don't hide that.

Secondly, to the Member opposite, I can confidently say that $570 million

worth of infrastructure creating thousands of jobs over the next number of

years certainly will impact the economy in a very positive way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

time for Question Period has expired.

The

Speaker is hesitant to interrupt Question Period and take away from the time

of recognized political bodies in this House to ask or answer questions, but

I've stood on many occasions and I'm going to put it out here today very

firmly that those who persist in interrupting during questions and answers

risk not being identified by the Speaker when they stand to ask a question

or answer.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

give notice that I will on Wednesday be moving the following private

Member's motion:

IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the government to ensure that

the Deficit Reduction Levy is immediately eliminated and that any

replacement measure be based on progressive taxation principles and further

urges that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial

income tax system begin promptly to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

This

will be seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I've just read is the motion that the

House will debate on Wednesday.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend

the College Act, 1996, which I understand to be Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House will not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17.

Further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not

adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of

motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS as a result of Budget 2016

X-ray services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health Centre will be

closed after 4 p.m. until 8 a.m.; and

WHEREAS this will mean that anyone needing an X-ray after 4 p.m. will have

to travel elsewhere via ambulance; and

WHEREAS as a result of Budget 2016

laundry services will also be cut resulting in laundry being transferred to

St. John's;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately direct Eastern Health to

reverse cuts to X-ray and laundry services at the Bonavista Peninsula

Community Health Centre.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I was contacted by a resident of the Bonavista area who was unable

to get a response from his MHA about this petition. So I agreed that I would

present a petition on behalf of residents. The residents who are on today's

petition are from communities like: Port Union, Keels, Bonavista, Elliston,

Catalina, Spillars Cove, Newmans Cove and a number of other areas on the

Bonavista Peninsula as well.

The

petition continues to be circulated and I anticipate receiving similar

petitions from residents of the Bonavista Peninsula in the days and weeks

ahead, and I'll do my best to bring those to this House of Assembly on

behalf of those residents.

received one letter from a gentleman in the Bonavista area who's a father.

He wrote and he said without X-ray services at the Bonavista hospital, his

son probably wouldn't be with us today. He provides some commentary as well

about the impact of cuts to X-ray services and he argues that there isn't

cost savings.

One

of the things that the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula would like to

see is proof that closing an AES office or reducing X-ray services or making

changes to laundry services will actually result in savings. He says with

regard to the cost savings, there is none.

One

certified X-ray technician position, for the sake of lives, isn't saving

money when I will have to pay for an ambulance, which government subsidizes,

a nurse and/or doctor to travel to Clarenville as well, an hour and a half

away from Bonavista, which is time enough to determine whether his son lives

or not. Upon arrival to the referring hospital, an X-ray technician will

have to be called in.

His

argument is that there could actually be more costs incurred as a result of

these changes. So the residents are looking for answers. They don't want

their health care services eroded. They feel they have been unfairly

targeted in this budget when it comes to cuts not only in health care, but

in other government departments as well.

the days and weeks ahead, I look forward to presenting further petitions on

behalf of residents of the Bonavista Peninsula who are very concerned about

these recent budget cuts.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax,

placing a higher burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as

currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and

other countries; and

WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal

income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction

Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive

taxation principles, and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and

Labrador provincial income system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, the petitions keep pouring in to the office. I also have an

electronic petition which I know we cannot submit to this House at this

point, but that has close to 20,000 signatures now. People aren't just

signing their names electronically. It's interesting; many of them are

writing comments. There are thousands of people writing comments, some of

them quite lengthy and substantive comments.

Mr.

Speaker, the people of the province know this levy is not a progressive,

fair taxation. Everybody in this House knows that as well. I don't know what

it's going to take for government to listen, to hear.

Academics are telling us, Municipalities NL is telling us, seniors are

telling us, teachers are telling us, labour is telling us and our neighbours

are telling. What does it take for government to listen, to really hear?

They talk so much about their consultation process, but that was a faux

consultation process. Basically all they did was set up the question, framed

the question and said: What would you cut?

know that's not the way to get ourselves out of this economic situation that

we're in. We all know it's bad. We've heard from government a million times.

We know it's bad, but we know there is a better way and that is what

government is refusing to look at.

When

you think of the Nobel laureate economist Krugman said that, in fact,

austerity doesn't work. We know that. Economists all over the world are

saying the same thing. Yet, this government is choosing to ignore the most

brilliant economic minds in the world. There's something wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

like to present this petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Budget 2016 closed the

Advanced Education and Skills office in Bonavista; and

WHEREAS the residents of Bonavista and surrounding communities require and

deserve an appropriate level of service;

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

House of Assembly to urge government reconsider its decision to close the

Bonavista Advanced Education and Skills office.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've had the opportunity to stand in this House and present a

number of petitions, particularly around the impact that the closures of the

AES offices will have on these communities. A lot of these are remote

communities or they're in isolated areas, or they themselves are the hub for

a number of surrounding communities. In Bonavista's case here, we have

people here who have signed from King's Cove, Plate Cove East, Melrose,

Catalina, Bonavista and all the other surrounding community areas there.

would like to note, too, that along with the Bonavista closure we have the

other areas: Baie Verte, for example, Mary's Harbour, Bell Island, Norris

Point, Hopedale, Nain and Twillingate.

As I

mentioned at the beginning, all of these are key service, oriented

communities that other communities feed into. They are either isolated, that

they stand on their own and all the residents use the AES office for a

multitude of services. Above and beyond what normally the Advanced Education

and Skills would offer, they become the hub for the connector between if

it's Municipal Affairs, if it's Health, if it's Education, if it's Tourism,

Culture, Business Development. Whatever line departments it may be, they

serve a very important component to enhancing programs and services for the

people there.

I've

noticed in my own community of Bell Island, and it has a similar process

when it comes to Bonavista, that it's a standalone, yet it can service

people in the immediate area. There's isolation. When you're in Bonavista to

be able to get to your nearest hub, it's not just down the street. It is

not, let's get a ride with our neighbour. It's not, well, on the way home

from somewhere I'll pick it up. It doesn't work that way.

The

services there are necessary, and they've been there for decades and decades

for a reason. It's helped drive the economy. It's helped to educate people.

It's helped get people access to services they didn't know existed. It's

helped the government at different levels, from municipal, provincial and

federal to be able to promote the services they have. It's also been a noted

area to engage citizens. Citizens have been able to go there for engagement

processes where they've been asked to give their opinion on certain programs

and services. This has been a very valuable tool to those communities that

exist in those particularly isolated areas.

It's

an injustice to be closing those without giving any real thought to the

service. I'm confident, and I've said it as somebody who worked nearly 30

years for that department, that this will cost the government much more than

what they're going to save on these closures and take away the service to

the people of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I present this petition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the

closure of 54 libraries; and

WHEREAS libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially

for those with little access to government services where they offer

learning opportunities and computer access; and

WHEREAS libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the

province's literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over

the operation and cost of libraries;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work

on a long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

These petitions, Mr. Speaker, continue to come into our office. People

around the province are absolutely concerned about the closure of the 54

libraries, whether or not it is happening in their community.

Today, we have people from Gander, from Fox Harbour, from Paradise, from

Logy Bay, from CBS, people from St. John's, Upper Island Cove and one person

who identifies herself as working poor. These are people who are sending in

the petitions. Besides the petitions that we're getting, they are being

backed up by people who may or may not have signed petitions, but who are

speaking out loudly.

The

letters to the editor in the paper continue. We have people from the

Department of Education all speaking out.

The

Minister of Education has said repeatedly that there's a regionalization

going on. One of the letters in the paper from a very professional librarian

has a question, well, what is that plan for regionalization? Regionalization

means nothing in and of itself. What is the plan? The plan seems to be

nothing, Mr. Speaker. That's what's concerning people.

The

Minister of Education has also repeatedly said that the communities can take

it over, the towns can take it over, yet we have mayors speaking out. The

plea from the Mayor of Cartwright is unbelievable. If these people haven't

listened to it, the government side of the House haven't taken time to

listen to the Mayor of Cartwright pleading for his community, I suggest they

do it. I suggest the ministers listen to it and find out what the mayors are

really saying about the impact on their communities. They cannot carry the

load and they're saying that they have to have the libraries for their

communities.

places where you can't use cellphones, you can't get any kind of

communication except through Wi-Fi; the libraries are one of the places

where people can go. They will not be able to access them, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune need to have access to

adequate health care; and

WHEREAS the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical

assistance for our people; and

WHEREAS the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinics

and downgraded services throughout the region;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to health

care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, as we heard in Question Period today, there's $30 million just

sitting to the side for goodness knows what, when for a million dollars we

can keep the health care clinics open in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's absolutely shameful that in this day and age we see a government making

these kinds of decisions. It's certainly very dismaying for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

fact, the residents of Hermitage, Seal Cove, Gaultois and McCallum are

extremely upset. It's being portrayed by the government opposite well, oh,

it's just a half an hour drive to the next nearest clinic. But that's not

even accurate. It's about a 45-minute drive from Hermitage and about an

hour's drive from Seal Cove. It takes an hour and a half by ferry from

McCallum to even land in Hermitage or a half an hour by ferry from Gaultois

to even land in Hermitage.

the same time, we're seeing visitation to my island communities, which have

no way in and out other than by ferry from twice a month down to once a

month. At the same time as they are closing the clinic and decreasing

services, they're cutting two nurses in the Harbour Breton hospital, sending

an additional 1,000 people their way and taking two nurses out of the

system, Mr. Speaker.

All

of us are at a loss as to how the Department of Health can justify mandating

Central Health to make such drastic cuts in rural areas. We strongly feel

that this government is being very punitive to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, and we're very worried about the future of Newfoundland and

Labrador with this government at the helm.

Certainly, if you look to my district, with the increase in aquaculture in

our area we do have a higher volume of traffic. We have a larger workforce.

We have an increased risk, I guess, at the plant which is operating flat out

all the time a wonderful thing but now if there's an industrial

accident, almost an hour away from a hospital. This can be a matter of life

or death, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to be too late after something

happens.

the mayor's letter that he recently sent to the minister and I truly hope

that the minister responds timely and favourably and grants their request

for a meeting to discuss this most serious issue he asks why we are being

looked at as second-class citizens. We deserve health care, just like the

rest of the province. We can't be dismissed just because we live in rural

communities. Rural communities, Mr. Speaker, make up over half of this

province.

will continue to fight until this government recognizes rural Newfoundland

and Labrador is just as important as anywhere else and we deserve health

care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker.

applaud my colleague here on the side of me for standing up for people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

To the hon. House of

Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the federal government cannot justify discriminating against

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in determining the dates of the

recreational food fishery;

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to be vocal in calling the

and Labrador to promote fairness, safety and tourism in our province.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Every week since we started in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I

presented this petition. I'm going to continue to present it. Everywhere I

go people are asking the question: Where are we to? I'm sure the Member for

St. Barbe L'Anse aux Meadows hears it every time he comes out, I'm sure

the people in St. Anthony, I'm sure the people on the Northern Peninsula,

I'm sure the people in Bonavista we want to know where are Members are and

where the Minister of Fisheries is in trying to get this out.

This

is about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about who we are as a people.

It's about a right that we had and our forefathers had for years to go out

and catch a fish in safety.

The

biggest thing about this whole thing, Mr. Speaker, is the safety aspect of

it. The federal government issues three weeks a year to go out in July, then

a couple of weeks in September to go out. In September, hardly anybody gets

out because it's too rough to go out there. The people who do go out, they

risk their lives every day to go out and catch a few fish.

All

we're asking is for our government to advocate to the federal government,

talk to your cousins and ask them if they can put this forward for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a safety issue and we want to see

that our fisherman and our people can go out on the water like everybody

else in Atlantic Canada and catch a cod.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This, too, is a petition that has been presented many times, but we have to

continue on.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy as introduced in

Budget 2016 unfairly targets the

middle class; and

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy asks low-income earners to pay more than

their fair share instead of increasing taxes to high-income earners;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately stop the introduction of

the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.

And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, on a personal note, I've joked with a couple Members opposite that

the word levy and anything that rhymes with it is becoming a bit more

challenging. We're faced with a situation where you run into on a daily

basis I guess there doesn't be a day that passes that people don't discuss

it. Their fear, their issue is and I keep to the basics, the low level;

it's the people on the ground who really matter. They keep saying: Why isn't

anybody listening?

The

Third Party has made a private Member's motion for this week. We all on this

side of the House continually, every opportunity we get I've had hundreds

of emails, as does most Members in this House. That seems to be the real

bone of contention.

guess to put it in context, what stuck out to me last week, I spoke to a

lawyer, a government worker, a teacher and just your regular run of the

mill, your average person, every one of those people, no matter what their

income levels, from top to bottom, complained about the levy, head tax,

cover charge they used these terms, not me.

know that Members opposite probably turned the mute button on this issue,

and it will come to light as we proceed through this session, but they

should stop and again, I use the words pause and reflect, because this is

a huge issue. In addition to everything else in this budget, the levy is

I've never seen such a lightning rod for anger in people. It amazes me; it

really does amaze me how Members opposite don't take this more seriously.

know one Member presented a petition on this exact issue from his

constituents, and I applaud the Member for that, but I wish the entire

government opposite would take this matter more seriously and listen to the

people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I call Orders of the

Day, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House

Of Assembly. (Bill 27)

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

by the hon. the Government House Leader that they have leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The

House Of Assembly and that this bill be now read a first time.

it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce

the bill?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House of Assembly,

carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend

The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been

read a first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do

now leave the Chair to debate Bill 1.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

are now considering Bill 1,

An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments

Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments.

bill,

An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments Commission And To

Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments. (Bill 1)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

for this bill, it's been a while now since we had a briefing on it, so I

guess I first should thank the people who provided us with the briefing.

This

act, and the proposed Independent Appointments Commission, when in fact the

bill only serves to create a commission which will recommend appointments.

So it's not making appointments. It's going to give a list that will be

considered further up the line.

When

you call something an Appointments Commission, the words appointments and

commission, you'd think that the decision would be more substantive. They're

actually just recommending for appointments to be made eventually by

Cabinet. They will be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is

Cabinet, and which in turn is politicians.

the Liberal government is serious about taking the politics out of

appointments and it's something that was campaigned heavily on. I remember

hearing the commitment. It was kind of interesting when I heard the Premier

during the campaign state how they were going to do that. I'm always open to

new ideas. When I heard that being said I wasn't a sitting Member in the

last Legislature out on the campaign trail I used to think it sounded

great.

You

take the politics out of appointments, but as you get digging into the bill

you start to realize that in theory I guess it's a bit of window dressing.

It looks like you may be taking the politics out of appointments but when

you dig down, the way the bill is presented to us anyway, it's very

questionable how much politics is actually going to come out of these

appointments, Madam Chair.

As I

said, if this was something they promised to do, then wouldn't they take the

politicians out of the appointment process altogether? Change the

legislation; change the regulations to show that the appointments were made

by a commission, not just recommended by a commission.

You

have a commission, and if you have to set up another Appointments

Commission, at least that would be more rigorous, I guess. They need to have

their own process.

What

I like to refer to sometimes when I have thought about this Appointments

Commission, any people who are familiar who have been in the public service

know that you go to the Public Service Commission, you apply for a position,

you're narrowed down you apply I guess and they do the search down. They

identify X number of people to do interviews. There's a matrix; there is an

actual scoring system. So if people have an issue, everyone is entitled to

go back and say: Why didn't I score higher? Why did I not get the position?

Where did I land?

is incumbent upon the Public Service Commission to meet with those people

and go over where their weakness were, tell them what they scored, tell them

what they could improve upon. It's more of an open process. Even when the

decisions come up the line and I've been seeing that before; you have your

recommended candidates but they are scored and you could have a bona fide

reason not to pick number one.

There are times that has happened, but usually there is a process in place

and you have justify why you are not picking the first person, if you're

going through a matrix as the Public Service Commission does follow. If

you're going to just take an Appointments Commission, you're going to submit

a batch of names, whoever wants to apply and you're just going to recommend

some people from that to send it up the line to Cabinet, again, to me, it

doesn't sound like politics has been taken out of appointments because we

all know Cabinet ultimately makes decisions, the way it stands today.

Governments are elected, so if you want to call politics as politics but

there is no doubt; anything that goes to the Cabinet room, politics does

play a role. If you're going to have something that's independent, it should

be independent of Cabinet and independent of government.

Before I move on, I hear Members opposite will get up, and I heard it today

again, I distance myself from that because I didn't appoint anyone in my

previous life, so I can pretty well talk freely on that one. It's not what

this former government done; it's not the process they used. It's thrown

back as we're going to do it better.

get that to a certain degree, Madam Chair, but still, it is what you

promised as a government. This government came up with this promise, our

current Premier and all elected Members. This wasn't something that the

former government done; this is something that the new government committed

to doing. I think that's a big difference because I suppose we learn back

in 2003 when the former government was there, the new government took over

and done things differently and you hear that banter back and forth; but, on

this case here, yes the former government and every government prior to this

current government, that's the way these appointments are done.

Now

you've committed to changing the process, which is really a big moment

because this is Bill 1 to a new government. Bill 1 is usually a watershed.

It's your bill that you stand by.

During the election, like I just said earlier, I commended the current

Premier of the day for coming out and bringing that in. I really did

honestly say it. I'm not saying it just for shallow words. I thought it was

neat because personally that was something that did you always pick the

best person for some of those positions? On a total just personal situation,

I used to look sometimes and wonder that a lot myself. So I commended the

Premier for bringing that forward. I thought it was pretty innovative.

Again, though, it makes you wonder is this legislation for the sake of

fulfilling an election promise. I was a bit surprised when we went in and

did that debriefing on it. The Members and government officials did a good

job, but there were a lot of blanks not filled in. You start realizing, as

my colleague for Mount Pearl North earlier tabled with the possible

amendments, there were a lot of issues. This bill sounds great on paper, but

when you start looking at it, it does require a lot of adjustments, I think,

for this to be truly an Independent Appointments Commission.

As I

said, the legislation is for the sake of fulfilling an election promise,

especially as it does nothing to alter who makes the appointment to alter

who makes the ultimate decision. As I just said, that decision will rest

Cabinet. Is this commission nothing more than window dressing? That remains

to be seen. Madam Chair, we feel on this side of the House that this bill

has a lot of weaknesses.

Government has been seen to be the government of inaction so far. As it was

stated last week by another Member on this side of the House, they finally

kept their promise on one of the bills they passed. It was a bit of

tongue-in-cheek, but a lot of people in the public questioned the same

thing. When are we going to see a lot of these promises that government has

been campaigning on, boasting on, yet they haven't delivered on.

This

legislation and the commission it will create have no teeth, no way to

ensure the recommendations are followed. It is inactive legislation, much

like the inactive government. The Cabinet has traditionally retained the

power to make appointments to key position. As I said, a Member opposite

said that earlier. That's the way it's been done forever, back to when we

became a part of Canada. This has always gone through Cabinet.

Because the First Minister and other Cabinets a collective response for

leading the provincial government and setting the direction of policy.

They're not accountable to the people of the House during elections. Again,

it comes back to every Cabinet needs to ensure that all those in leadership

positions, at agencies, commissions, Crown corporations throughout the

government are not just qualified, skilled, experienced or proven and

trustworthy, but also capable of working collaboratively with government and

not cross purposes. Sharing the vision and objectives of the government is

part of being qualified; a team divided against itself could not stand.

Yes,

there are roles where you want antagonists, people who want to be

independent and hold government up to scrutiny of criticism. For example,

the Auditor General, the Child and Youth Advocate, the Citizens'

Representative and soon to be the new seniors' advocate, are in such roles.

We'd also like to see a veterans' advocate, but I guess you can't have it

all.

That's why they're appointed by the House. If you're appointed by the House,

it's intended to be taking Cabinet, taking the politics of out of it. You're

appointed by the House, and those positions are appointed by the House for

that reason, because they're not supposed to be on government's side.

They're supposed to be speaking for the general public, the people.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

They're expected to be

critical of government, but agencies and commissions and Crown corporations

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Agencies and commissions and Crown corporations are entities that do work of

government. They are part of a team running this province. They are expected

to work collaboratively and smoothly with the administration to implement

the administration of policies to achieve its goals in the context of sound,

corporate management.

Obviously, Madam Chair, it's not in any Cabinet's interest to appoint

political friends who are not qualified to do the job because the work will

not get done effectively and Cabinet will bear the blame and the shame.

There are many examples where Liberal governments and PC governments have

appointed individuals who have worked very closely with the administration

in the past and that would be considered political friends. Over the years,

both governments when it's their turn in power have appointed people and

they've gotten their share of criticism for it. Some of those appointments

have not been bad appointments.

You

can have your banter, but if you want to truly make this independent and

truly take the politics out of everything, do that. Put this Appointments

Commission remove it so Cabinet doesn't decide. Put it in the hands of a

truly independent commission to do independent appointments.

know Members opposite always like to refer to the past or what's happening

behind the scenes, but that's not where we are today. We're debating Bill 1,

which I want to remind the government again, it is their watershed bill. It

is their first bill they're bringing in as a new government.

Ironically, it was brought in and we were back in March it seemed like it

was full steam ahead and then it stopped. There's no doubt, when the

amendments came out it was just put on the Order Paper and it stayed there

until now. So, obviously, it's not a piece of legislation that probably

government wants or proud of, as they boasted in the beginning because maybe

they too realize there's probably a lot of work to be done on this bill.

Again, as the Opposition over here, we're not saying it's a horrible thing.

We're saying this bill needs to be tightened up more. It sounds nice on

paper to have an Independent Appointments Commission but it means nothing on

paper unless it's truly independent. Right now, the public will say, you'll

come out and you'll pass a bill and you'll make it all sound great. When it

comes to practice, we all know where the end result happens. It happens in

the Cabinet room.

Any

decision coming out of the Cabinet room, if they're not political I can't

see them not being political, but if they're done by an Independent

Appointments Commission and then they are brought into the House to be voted

on, that to me is an independent process. It's one we should all embrace

because it's your Bill 1, it's your watershed bill. It's one that you should

be moving in the direction of doing that instead again, it's fine to get

up here, and we'll hear it. No doubt, we'll hear lots of that, what you did

or what you did in the past and all this. That's not where we are.

We're not actually opposed to this legislation. We're just opposed to the

legislation as it stands now and the way it's written. We have issues with

as you say, we have amendments coming. Those amendments are meant to address

the concerns we have.

The

bill as it stands right now is one we don't support, but the legislation,

the idea of that legislation is one we're open to discussing. At the end of

the day, we'd love to see an Independent Appointments Commission that is

truly independent and will do the work that it's required to do and no

political interference.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

hon. Member for St. John 's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Just

giving notice that we will be doing amendments to subclause 6(3) and

subclause 9(1).

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just

following suit, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just indicated

which clauses that she intends to introduce amendments for. Out of respect

for the House process and hopefully to allow things to move smoothly this

afternoon at the Table, I'll indicate as well some of the clauses that we

intend to propose amendments for: clause 2(c), clause 6(3) I'm sorry, the

Leader of the NDP indicated 6(3), so we may bring forward an additional

amendment to 6(3) as well 6(4), 6(7), 7(4) 7(6)

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We gave a copy

MR. KENT:

Yes, you have this list

that I'm reading from as well. I know the Table Officers do as well.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

That's an amendment.

MR. KENT:

It is still an amendment,

yes.

is 9(2)(b); 10(2); 11(2); 13(1) as you can see, I've been writing all

weekend, Madam Chair 13(3) and (4); 13(5); 15(1) and 16

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KENT:

A Member opposite just

suggested we write a new bill. That would make a lot more sense, Madam

Chair, than what we're going to do here this afternoon.

There are a couple of amendments to 19(4), which affect the

Public Service Commission Act 21(3) and 21(4), and also 19(5) which

relates to

Schedule C of Public

Service Commission Act ; and we will also reserve the right to bring in

amendments to the

Schedule and, perhaps, the

long title, depending on how

debate unfolds today and perhaps in subsequent days in this House.

those are the amendments we intend to introduce. I won't prolong discussion

on clause 1, and I look forward to working with the other parties in the

House as we proceed through the Committee stage of debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam

Chair.

I'll

speak to clause 1 just briefly as we move on and I will say to the Members

opposite, I appreciate you submitting your amendments in advance. I can say

that we are looking at this now because we do want the best piece of

legislation possible.

I'm

going to respond to the Member for CBS's comments first of all. I think what

he said is that he disagrees with this bill and won't be supporting this

bill. That's how I took it. I took it so that the Official Opposition

disagrees with the concept of having a more rigorous, merit-based process to

the appointment of individuals to positions. If that's the case, if I'm

hearing that wrong, then I find that very, very unfortunate and I'll let the

Members opposite discuss that.

don't want to belabour the point because we have had an opportunity. We had

a press conference on this, there were briefings on and we had second

reading on it. But I will address one point just so the Member realizes. He

said well, we're in here now talking about this and it was full steam ahead

at first, but he has to realize that actually I think we discussed this just

during the first couple of weeks that this House was in session. Then I

think we went on the traditional Easter Break where there's nothing

discussed in this House of Assembly because the House is not open. Since

that time, again, I think we all realize what we've been discussing, which

is the budget. So it's not a case of not wanting to discuss something; it's

a case of there are certain things you have to do at a time certain time.

We're extremely proud of this piece of legislation. I think somebody in the

Official Opposition's staff office might be out tweeting about it and saying

that I said it was a flawed bill. Just in case, if they're going to quote

me, just get it accurate. What I said was if it's flawed, it's still 10

times better than what the previous government had, which was nothing. I say

to the staffers out there: If you're going to tweet, get it accurate. If you

don't want to get it accurate, I can't help you there. You do what you got

to do. What I've said and thankfully everything that we say is recorded in

Hansard.

go back to the general subject of what the Member is discussing, he's saying

this is something we campaigned on. It's an independent process, but we

don't think they've done enough. They've haven't gotten the politics all out

of this; therefore, I can't support it.

we've discussed on a number of occasions, I'm willing to speak to this bill

and answer the different clauses, whether they want to amend them or not.

We'll certainly take our time. We have all today, tonight, tomorrow,

tomorrow night and June, that's not a problem. What I will say, though, is

that I'm looking forward to getting into the substantive side. I'm not going

to spend a lot of time talking about it is not good enough.

The

fact is the Member opposite wasn't a part well, he was a

part in the

background. The previous government had every opportunity to do something

and they chose not to. Their process was find somebody, put them in a

position and there was no process.

this case, we've laid out that the Public Service Commission is there and

will do screening of applications, merit-based assessments, gender lens;

there's a whole number of screening. Then it goes to an independent board.

This group actually won't be appointed unless it's done through this House,

a resolution that will be also debated in this House, those individuals,

once we ever get to that stage.

I'm

looking forward to that because as I just said to the media, we need to move

this forward. I think the number I have here, the number when we came in

there are 50 vacancies and 300 expired appointees. That's a significant

number for the number of ABCs we have out there, agencies, boards and

commissions. So we've come in and normally the previous government what I

would say is that when they wanted something filled, they filled it. How did

you select who it was? I have no idea. One could only guess.

What

I will say is that we want to get this commission up and running. We think

this is a great process. We think that there are checks and balances in

place. We think that there are going to be public reporting components. We

know that there are going to be public reports done on an annual basis. We

know that the IAC itself will go through an IAC process down the road. This

is light years ahead of the previous processes used by any government

before. We think this is a step in the right direction.

know the other side is going to oppose certain things. I get that. That, in

many cases, is the job, to oppose. I can say I've been there. What I also

like to think is that when I was on the other side I prided myself on trying

to do what I thought was best, in the legislative sense, of putting forward

amendments. So we'll certainly take all the time that is necessary to debate

and discuss the amendments that are put forward by both sides, to discuss

the pros and cons, why we should or should not do something.

welcome the fact that the Deputy Opposition House Leader has suggested a

huge number here. We'll discuss each of these as we go through. I'm sure

they're going to stand up on a number-by-number basis and enter those and

we'll discuss each one of these. If it has merit, then maybe we'll discuss

putting it in. If it doesn't, then we'll disagree and there it is. At the

end of the day, I still think we're going to be at a much, much better place

than where we were previously where it wasn't merit based; it wasn't

independent.

The

other thing I just had to point this out before I sit down is that

they've said Cabinet still has a say. As the Member opposite would know,

Cabinet has a duty to govern. The failure to act upon that and to abrogate

your responsibility would go against the whole purpose of governance in the

first place. I know that you want this to go to a select process and I know

you still want the opportunity to have that, but that's not how the

governance process works. What we're doing is vastly improving on the

governance process that existed beforehand.

look forward to the debate. I look forward to discussing the substantive

amendments that have been put forward. I'll sit, at this point, and wait for

further commentary.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. PETTEN:

Conception Bay South,

Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

My apologies.

MR. PETTEN:

No problem. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

just want to point out a couple of things that the hon. Government House

Leader just pointed out. To clarify, I said we support an Independent

Appointments Commission. We don't support what's being presented on this

Bill 1.

do support, with the proper amendments, with the right independence to it

we do support that. So I just want to clarify, our stance on this side of

the House is we have no problem with an Independent Appointments Commission

as long as it's truly independent. We have amendments put in to try to make

that happen. The text of the bill as it stands today, we don't support it.

We do, though, support an Independent Appointments Commission, if it's truly

independent.

won't take up all my time, Madam Chair, but I wanted to clarify that.

Something else that the hon. Government House Leader just pointed out it's

window dressing; you can say what you want, but it keeps coming back to this

side of the House. As I clearly stated, I commended this government, this

Premier for bringing in like I said during the election, I thought it was

a decent idea. I started thinking when I saw it first I think we all kind

of said yeah, it's an interesting option. But basically, this is like the

legitimizing of secret Cabinet decisions.

Now

all of a sudden the Appointments Commission made this, it's going to go to

Cabinet, it's going to come to the House it's a smoke and mirrors game; it

makes it seem like this has been done independent, which we know that the

way this bill is designed now the Cabinet does not have to take any

recommendation from this committee. That's no different than what's ever

been in place, Madam Chair.

Before everyone knew, those are the rules of the game forever in a day.

Again, it's not about this side of the House. It's not about previous

governments; it's about what's here and now today. It's Bill 1, it's their

bill. It's one that they campaigned on, that their proud of. Again, I'll

just remind everyone. We're not opposed to Bill 1 or an Independent

Appointments Commission as stated in Bill 1; we're just opposed to all of

the loopholes and back doors. As my colleague for Mount Pearl North said

maybe a new bill would be better with these new amendments, then it would be

something that we could sit down and have a conversation about.

This

is government's bill. It's not about previous governments. Whether they be

Liberal or Tory or whatever, this is not about those governments; it's about

what this government here and now that was elected November 30, 2015,

campaigned on. It was one of the centrepieces to their thing, taking the

politics out of appointments.

As I

said and as we will continue to say, we have put these amendments in to

voice those concerns. We have serious concerns with the way this bill is

written. When you have a bill that can go and if they are only basing it on

recommendations, as we all know recommendations are what they are, they are

recommendations. Final decisions if they're made by Cabinet, well that's

where your Independent Appointments Commission is, Madam Chair. It's in the

Cabinet room, not in the Independent Appointments Commission office.

Until they (inaudible) those amendments that we have in place or talk to us

about them, right now we can't support it as it stands, but we are willing

to talk to them if they are willing to bring in some amendments.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

My apologies to the

Member for Conception Bay South for wrongly identifying his district.

The

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much,

Madam Chair.

Just

to speak briefly to clause 1, which says, This Act may be cited as the

Independent Appointment Commission Act .

So that's a telling phrase; it's a telling name.

One

of the things that was in the Liberal platform in 2015 it was their very

first promise, actually was the creation of a commission to take politics

out of government appointments. Everybody wants that to happen. Everybody

would like to see politics taken out of appointments to the various

government bodies and agencies. People talk about it all the time. How do

you get appointed to these things?

have an awful lot of proof in our history here in the House of Assembly for

decades and decades of many appointments being patronage appointments. So

one imagines that's what the government or the Liberals were thinking about

when they put in their election platform that they would take the politics

out of government.

Then

they repeated it again in the Speech from the Throne, because they had the

Independent Appointments Commission in the Speech from the Throne. They

said, This commission will be the first of its kind in Newfoundland and

Labrador, taking the politics out of government appointments. We believe

that appointments to our agencies, boards and commissions should be

merit-based, not politically motivated, as in the past.

taking politics out does seem to be something they're really concerned

about. It's a very interesting idea, but as we go through the discussion of

Bill 1, we will be questioning and looking at: Does it really take the

politics out? One of our amendments in particular, which I'll make when we

get to

section 6, will be putting in an amendment we think would help take

the politics out. Because right now so much power is in the hands of the

government, they don't even seem to be recognizing where they are holding

power.

our first amendment, when we get to it, we'll put something on the table to

propose how to take the politics out in a very real way, in the very first

step of setting up the Commission. The government will prove to us then

whether or not they are serious about taking the politics out when they

decide whether or not to vote for our amendment which we will be putting

forward.

Right now, that's all I want to say. As we go forward I will have more to

say.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much,

Madam Chair and you got the name right, thank you.

just want to say a few words on this one, just for a couple minutes. Bill 1,

I got up and spoke a little while ago when we first introduced it here in

the House. Bill 1 to me is I look at the intent. I agree with the

Government House Leader, the intent of the bill is good. I really do believe

that. I believe the intent of the bill is good, but it's how the bill is put

forward. It's what's in the bill that I really disagree with. I know across

the way there are names slung over here of people that our government

appointed during our tenure in government. I really respect a lot of those

names. They did a great job and they're still doing great jobs, actually, in

some of their portfolios.

It's

not only us. It goes back for years and years and years, since Confederation

really. When you look back and every day. You'll always see names in the

public. You'll see names like Dicks and Dumaresque and that in the '90s that

were appointed. It's not to say one did it right or one did it wrong.

They're very respectful men and the same thing are people. Most people who

do get appointed to these commissions and boards are good people. I'm sure

they're doing a fantastic job. The idea and the promise that was made during

the campaign was that this was going to be done independently. That was the

promise that was made.

That's not a promise because this is not what's happening in this bill.

What's happening in the bill basically is that it will all come back to

Cabinet. Now that's not what the promise basically says. The promise they

made in their election platform was that we're going to take out the words

were: take politics out of appointments. That's what we heard: taking the

politics out of appointments.

Maybe you can do it and maybe there are ways of doing it. I'm hoping people

across the way will look at the amendments we're doing and perhaps we'll

have the best piece of legislation in all of Canada. That's what I'd love to

see come out of this.

When

you say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you're taking the

politics out of appointments, they look at you to say, okay, so that means

politicians are not going to have the final say in who that person is. The

best possible candidate will be the one that's selected.

think that's what everybody looked at when this promise was made to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They said, okay, all these years since

Confederation it was always and we've heard it. Listen, everybody in this

House and everyone listening at home, it was always said it's not who you

know, it's what you know. You're not going to get a job unless you know

somebody there. That's sad, but do you know what? Today that's leaving

because if you see how people are getting appointed, like no matter what it

is, fire departments and stuff, they don't even use names anymore and stuff

like this. It's a good way of doing things because it's fair. That's the

same thing with this.

want the best possible legislation that's available. We want to make sure

when we finish Bill 1, when it comes out that, okay, we got a piece of

legislation in place for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they

feel confident in. Not something like a Member said earlier, smoke and

mirrors. You want it perceived as, oh, we have this great legislation in

place and everything is hunky-dory, that the people are very, very pleased

with, but down the road things change. What can change in this is that the

Appointments Commission will recommend now, we can't call them an

Appointments Commission; they should be called a recommendation commission

because they only recommend. They do not appoint. That's the big difference

that we'll see here today is that they do not appoint. You have to remember

that it's a recommendation.

Then

what happens, they'll recommend three people that will go to Cabinet. This

is the part that I'd like to see is that there be some kind of a ranking. So

here are the criteria for the job and this is what's normally done and

here's what you need to meet that criteria. It could be anything, your

education, your background experience and stuff like this. Here are the

things we are looking for in that job.

When

you go into most jobs what they'll do, they'll rank you. They say okay, the

first job, education; well that's exactly what we're looking for, education.

So it goes one, two, three, four and how it goes down the line on each one.

At the end, you have three people. These are the three best qualified people

for that job. These are the three best people for that job. Number one, he

or she has everything that we were looking for. Number two, well, we would

like a little bit more experience, but still qualifies and that's why we

selected that person as number two. Number three would be okay, still has

great experience and stuff like that but when we interviewed them, this is

the way we ranked them.

That

doesn't happen at all in this bill. The commission do not give you a

ranking; they just give you three names. Now, one person could be so

qualified, they could have years and years of and that person is head and

shoulders over everyone else, but it's only that name that goes up to being

a recommendation.

Here's the scary part of the whole bill, and the part that I really don't

understand. These three individuals do not have to be the person that they

choose. After going through this whole process, huge process of getting the

names it could be hundreds of people, could be 50 people, could be 1,000

people, I don't know, apply for this job, apply for head over this

department, head over this commission, head over whatever. Here they are,

they applied for this and it goes through the whole process through the

recommendation commission, the whole process goes through and those three

people that are after going through the whole process they don't know

their ranking or anything like that, but their names get forwarded to

Cabinet. And obviously, a good commission are after going out and they're

after finding the three best possible people to do the job.

The

three names go to Cabinet, yet Cabinet, if they don't want them, they can

say no, that's not the person I want. They can appoint somebody completely

different. Now, what is the difference the Member said smoke and mirrors.

I believe this is smoke and mirrors but this is the worst kind because

you're trying to lead people to believe that you're doing something and

you're not actually doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I remember one time a

boss of mine said you've got to make them believe you're telling the truth.

That's what they're trying to do to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They're trying to make you believe this is independent when it's not. It's

not truly independent because at the end of the day once the appointment

comes out where they are appointing a commission for the Auditor General

they could have a name that we're going to put in as Auditor General of this

province. The whole process can go right through the whole system. Then all

of a sudden, the three best names after they interview them, they check out

all the references, they checked out their education, checked out their

experience, checked out everything, and we have three really good candidates

to do that, these three names get put up to Cabinet.

The

Cabinet before it all started probably said this guy would be a great

guy or this lady would be a great person, and that name they could have

there too. Let me tell you, I am not saying that person wouldn't be

qualified because I'm sure you wouldn't appoint somebody to the Auditor

General's portfolio if they weren't qualified. I mean, that's a huge

position and you really need to know what you're doing to be the Auditor

General. I applaud Mr. Paddon and all Auditors General, Mr. Noseworthy and

everyone else who I dealt with since I've been here. I was on the Public

Accounts Committee since I've been elected and I have to tell you they do a

fantastic job.

point being is that we could have three really good candidates this is the

problem with the whole bill. This is the gist for me because I agree with us

taking politics out, like the promise was. The promise was to take politics

out of appointments. Those were the words the Premier used. Those were the

words that were in your red book. Those were the words when you knocked on

doors and they talked about people getting appointed for everything and you

had to know somebody to get a job, those were the words you used to the

people in the province.

That's not what's happening here at all. What's happening here is you can

have you want; this commission is just going to give you a recommendation.

It's going to go up to Cabinet, you're going to sit around the Cabinet table

and you're going to have a person who you have in your mind, this is the one

we want for the job and that person may qualify. Yes, that person may be a

great candidate, but it may not be the three names that were recommended. It

may be someone different.

Here's the worst of it. If you came out publicly and said okay, we have

candidate A, B and C and these are the three people who were recommended for

the position, but we don't want that person because we have another person.

If that was put out publicly, if the public knew that, then maybe the bill

would be okay. If that's what the intent of this bill was to do, was to put

it out into the public and say okay, we disagree with the commission. We

don't agree with A, B, and C because they are not as qualified as the person

we have selected. If that was the case and you could justify it then okay,

but that's not the case. No one will ever know. They'll never know the three

people that goes up to Cabinet, and they'll know if those three people were

the actual ones that were recommended. No one will ever know. It's secrecy

at the worst.

It's

unbelievable that you could even think about doing something like that. It

is even worse than what it was before because you're putting all this

bureaucracy in place and getting all this work done, yet you're cutting her

down and saying no, that's the person we wanted.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

I say it seriously.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll

join some of my colleagues in taking an opportunity to speak to clause 1 of

the bill and respond to some of the things that have been said so far. I

thank my colleagues for really summing up the fundamental problem we see

with this legislation.

when we're talking about clause 1, this is a clause that defines the bills

short title. At this point in time we won't be amending that clause. But the

clause reads: This Act may be cited as the

Independent Appointments Commission

Act. So, for the reasons that my colleagues have outlined, maybe it

would be appropriate at some point in time for us to change the name of the

bill.

I'm

hoping through the course of this debate in Committee we'll make changes

that will make the bill more effective, but to suggest that it's called the

Independent Appointments Commission is incredibly ironic, Madam Chair,

because we're talking about a group that at this point, based on the way

it's proposed, won't be at all independent. And here's the real kicker: It

won't even be able to make appointments.

thought maybe it should be called the Liberal recommendations commission or

something like that, or a more cynical name might suggest that it be called

an act to justify Liberal political patronage appointments. But that's

overly cynical.

The

Government House Leader has expressed a willingness to work with us through

this process, so I'll take him at his word. I hope that of the 16 amendments

we've brought forward will all get adopted by government in this House. But

at the very least, I hope a number of will because it will make a flawed

piece of legislation a little bit better.

However, the right thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and start

again. It is so flawed that there are amendments required to virtually every

clause of the bill to make it a sensible piece of legislation. Even then,

it's still not the optimal approach.

Much

like the recent budget, it would be far better to admit you got it wrong,

throw it out and start over. That would be the right approach to take with

this Independent Appointments

Commission Act . In the absence of doing that, then we need to do our

best to try and make this legislation at least a bit more sensible and

workable.

want to ensure the commission is truly independent, that it's impartial,

that it's accountable and that it's effective. So that is why we will be

bringing forward amendments to many clauses in this bill. If the bill isn't

significantly amended, then I think a name change would be warranted. The

current bill doesn't create a commission that's independent, doesn't create

a commission that can make appointments.

Just

a general comment on our amendments, they may seem a bit complicated in some

places, but they're intended to be really straightforward. We've laid out

the language, we've consulted with others to try and make sure the

amendments are technically sound. I hope that we'll get an opportunity to

debate each one of them in this hon. House.

The

other point I want to make, Madam Chair, in response to the Government House

Leader's comments, if government had wanted to avoid this kind of process in

the House where we have to introduce an amendment it's the typical

process: you introduce the amendment, you debate the amendment, you pause to

consider whether the amendment is in order and then you debate the amendment

if it is there was a better way.

didn't have all our amendments finished six weeks ago, but we did provide

some public commentary. I did media interviews where I outlined the kinds of

amendments we were going to bring forward. Now we've got them written, and

today is the first opportunity to present them in this House.

The

bill could have been sent to a legislative review committee, a committee of

this House, with