PDF Version

April 21, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 5

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, second

reading of Motion 8, Bill 10.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity

And Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 10)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'll take an opportunity, briefly this

morning, to speak to this bill. This bill will amend the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act

to remove the requirement to adjust Members' salaries by a percentage that is

the average of the percentage of adjustment under prescribed collective

agreements.

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the 2017 Members' review

commission. I think, given the light of today's fiscal climate, an increase that

would be higher than the increase for the general public service, due to the way

this formula was, doesn't fit our fiscal climate at this time. It is a

continuation of a 13-year wage freeze. MHAs have not had a wage increase since

2008, but it's important that under the current fiscal situation we're in that

we continue this at this time.

It's also important to note that we, as Members of this

House, lead when it comes to these types of matters. Back in 2016, the Cabinet

of the day actually did a wage rollback of 10 per cent to the Cabinet at that

time. So there has been significant sacrifice here by MHAs over the last number

of years, but I think at this time it's important that we continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Following up on the Government House Leader's comments

on Bill 10, I guess the first thing that comes to mind for me, probably, is I

don't really know if anyone in this Chamber has any business to be discussing

what we're discussing here. I say that due to the fact that the general public

has a perception out there about MHAs' pay raises, what they make and whatever.

It's a false expectation and it's false information most times, but that's not

the issue. The public opinion is the public opinion and we're not here to debate

that.

There's a Members' Compensation Review Committee that's

struck every four years after each election, to review all Members' salaries,

compensation, benefits and what have you, for the simple reason of removing

everyone in this Chamber from the process. You can go in, you sit down, you

discuss it with them, express your concerns and whether you think this is right,

that's right, what fits and what doesn't fit.

Back in early 2016, I know me and some of my colleagues

here, our leader – me and him, in particular, and there were probably a couple

of others who are not here anymore that went through that process. I'm sure for

Members opposite it's the same thing. It was a new process to me at the time.

You went in and you didn't know, really, what you were defending, but you were

asked questions and you offered opinions. You were new to the game anyways so

you really didn't have that great depth of experience. I know our leader did; he

was well experienced. He spent a fair bit of time up there, so much so that I

think he told me that they told him he had to leave because he was there too

long.

At the end of the day, people might not realize that

they made huge adjustments to pensions – reductions and a lot of changes to

pensions. Salaries in this House used to be the salary for all positions,

whether it was Whip or caucus Chairs, or the Deputy House Leaders on the

Opposition side and whatever. That was all removed. There was a big adjustment

made. I know the premier of the day on a separate issue removed all salaries for

parliamentary secretaries as a part of doing a fiscal – whatever.

It happens. You remove it. There's not so much as a

peep in the public about it, but if you go the other way, there's a public

outcry. If politicians were to give themselves 5 cents extra, there would be an

outcry in the streets. I get that. Is it right? Probably not, but it is what it

is. We're not arguing that point. I think it's an issue that appears that people

are afraid to discuss because of fear of repercussion.

I know in 2016, the pensions were an issue. There was a

motion and there was some consideration given to grandfather in the Members

elected in 2015 to the old pension plan. There was an outcry. I won't get into

the logistics of what happened, how that ended up going back to where it is now,

but it did. It affected me, of course, and it affected a lot of you Members as

well across the way, but this is what you're dealing with. You're dealing with a

very sensitive issue and the public – for some reason, it's a no-no.

If you look at salaries as a whole, you look at

salaries in positions through government, there's a major imbalance to what

elected officials make decisions on and actually make decisions on the salaries

of people that are making a lot more money than most elected officials. It's a

kind of the tail-wagging-the-dog effect.

I sit on the Management Commission and I've been there

for a while now. We approved salaries, one time in particular – and I know the

Member opposite was on the Committee with me and made reference that we're

approving a salary, that the person was making more than the premier. Something

about that doesn't seem right.

You remove us from our Parliament – you go down to the

United States and the president of the United States. If you have an official

within the ranks making more than the president of the United States, people

would be outraged. Yet, we're here in our Parliaments and we're approving

salaries as elected officials. We have the ability, we have the duty – that's

our responsibility – to say yay or nay to the salary increases and we're paying

more than the head of government.

Again, there's no sympathy out there for politicians.

We're at the raw end of everything. People say you're paid good money. Yeah, no

doubt, no one is disputing any of that; it's just the overall concept of taboo.

You're entitled to a raise. This raise you're entitled to was done by an

independent Committee, the Members' Compensation Review Committee. Done so to

remove politicians from this process, which is what I started out saying. I

don't know if we should even be discussing this here, but it was brought here

and it was brought by government, so that's their prerogative – and the Premier,

whatever. I will discuss it, but that was done independently for this reason –

hands off.

Back in 2016, this same Committee reviewed to take

pensions and make drastic reductions in pensions. It affected a lot of Members

in this House. There was some talk about grandfathering in the old clause and

there was public outcry and went hands off. That's the MCRC. We have no right to

do that. We removed ourselves, we got in this House and we approved it. A lot of

Members opposite sat here; they were a part of that process. But now we're doing

a reversal. Now, there's something in the MCRC may benefit – when it hurt us,

everyone was like, yah. But when it would benefit you, the optics are not good.

It's not in line with public service raises. I get all that, by the way. I get

it and I am not arguing that.

I think it's irresponsible not to discuss it, to keep

it hidden, but I think there's a misconception out there. There's a total

misconception out there of what MHAs actually make for what they do. I'm not

disputing the wage. The wage is a good wage. My point is, in comparison with

what decisions you make, responsibilities you're given, the job that it entails,

the responsibilities. You just went through a three-month election, everyone

should know, you're living in a fishbowl in Newfoundland, you're not in the big

suburbs, big city, big place where you're hid away. We're under the microscope.

You go to Sobeys for a loaf of bread, look out for two

hours. We all accept that, that comes with the territory. Everywhere you go

people know you're there, people know you're – I go to Costco for God sake and

you're running in – it's just no matter where you go you can't avoid it. We all

accept that. Dare give any benefits to it, any monies or anything of that sort,

but it's okay throughout governments and other places to pay $120,000, $140,000,

$150,000, $160,000 or $180,000 – more salaries than the Premier gets. No one

seems to care about that.

We have 40 Members here, they make all those decisions,

affect all of those positions, all this government, every person in here, but

it's a terrible thing to give any benefit to them.

There'll be no crying on the street for what I'm saying

here now. There'll be no sympathy and that's fine, but having the courage to say

that this bill here – I know why it's being done. I know exactly why it's being

done, because it's more than the public service, we're faced with a fiscal

situation, I get all that and we're not going voting against it. We'd be crazy

to vote against it, but we're crazy not to speak about it.

I don't say there's a Member in this House disagrees

with what I'm saying here. How do you address it? What do you do?

This MCRC was meant to be totally independent – totally

independent of anyone in this House and here we are discussing the wages. It

makes you feel uncomfortable for one. I don't think it's appropriate, but how do

we fix this?

It's fine tomorrow if the MCRC came in and said we're

going to take every other benefit away from Members, ministers – they can't

touch ministers – going to cut MHAs salaries in half. The public would be out on

the street. They would be clapping and clapping. If we come in this House and

try to revoke what the MCRC did, what they are doing now, we would have protests

on the front steps. Anyone arguing with me on that, I can put money on it.

That's exactly what would happen. That's where we live. That's the reality we're

faced with.

Do we go with an MCRC again? We're picking these

Members' Compensation Review Committees to be independent, to make decisions –

good or bad, indifferent – and we have to live with it. But if we're going to

pick and choose and cherry-pick off that MCRC, why are we having an MCRC? We

just went through an election. We're going to set the Management Commission;

we're going to appoint the independent committee to come in and review our

salaries and benefits. I'll throw it out there now: Should we not try another

process?

If that's not independent enough, what is? Because,

realistically, I'm not staying here forever. I know most of us are not. We're

not going to be here forever. The wages may never change while I'm MHA; I'm

okay. I'll survive. It's not about me; it's about the process. As elected

officials, how are we going to get people to come into elected office? Why are

we having so much trouble as parties attracting candidates? There's a simple

answer to that. I have Members here under my own caucus that cut their salaries

in half to be an MHA. They took a 50 per cent reduction to be an MHA. Their

workload is doubled and tripled. Nobody cares about that, but don't give them

any benefit. Don't dare give a benefit to an MHA.

You hear the public's scourge about what they think

about politicians. It's outrageous. We don't help ourselves a lot of times, but

a lot of times it's unfounded. We come in and do that. I can see what travels

through. I've been on the other side; I know the way stuff travels through. That

got up in the Premier's office and they went: Oh my God, a 5.7 per cent raise.

We can't do that. No, no, no, not in these times. That won't be accepted. And

they're right. But why is it not being accepted? Is it being explained properly?

Is it being told properly?

We have no business to be giving that raise. The House

Leader across the way, we were here; we didn't have any input into that raise.

We were told by the head of the MCRC in 2016: This is what you're getting. We

didn't know what it was going to be then; it was an average. We wouldn't touch

that. Okay, that's fine. But you lost a lot of things in that last time around,

but we could not go there. We could not go there. The former government House

leader, when he was on the Management Commission, tried to bring forward a

motion to keep grandfathered in the old pensions. There was outcry. There were

scrums out in the Chamber. I was in the middle of scrums out there. It was a

terrible thing. You were going to leave pensions alone; you weren't going to

affect people's pensions.

Was it wrong? Maybe, I don't know. I never benefited

from it, obviously, but we said: No, no, you go with the MCRC. That is the crux

of the problem, is the cherry-picking event there.

The optics are not good. You approve this, you approve

a raise, word gets out we got a raise and it will be – again, I repeat, we are

not voting against this, but it annoys me, as a politician, but it annoys me as

a person. No one in this Chamber are bad people. I think everyone in this

Chamber works for their money. They make decent money, there's no doubt about

it. But if you're entitled to a raise, why is it a bad thing to give a

politician a raise but it's alright to give an ADM or a DM or a director or a

executive director raises higher than the Premier? Is that fine? No one says

that's all fine, you earned your money, good for you.

I think we all need to take a sober look. Again, this

will be done, but I think that's something that we all need to look at and take

a deep breath and whoever wants to listen, draw opinions, they can come to me, I

have no problem, I'll defend myself any day. That's what's wrong with this

system. That's what annoys me about being a politician. It's this stereotype:

you're greedy.

That's why this is a wrong approach here. I throw

criticism across the way to the government opposite for bringing this to the

floor of the House of Assembly. I think it would have been better to bring this

to the new MCRC, new Members' Compensation Review Committee and have them

discuss it. We should not be discussing this. But does it make my blood boil?

Yes, it does because I think everyone here earns their money. Are they overpaid?

No. Are they underpaid? No. But get what you rightfully deserve.

When you go around, you can go through government and

you can make decisions affecting all of these lives of people – check the

sunshine list. I challenge anyone in the public, anyone watching, check the

sunshine list. Find out how many MHAs are there. The ministers are there. Anyone

who has probably an office position might be there; no MHAs there, not the one.

Why is that? Well, look how many people are on that list; 3,200 people, not an

MHA based on their salary. The ministers are there and that's fine. I'm not

knocking that. But there's nothing wrong with having the courage to say that you

don't agree with this, and have the courage to say you don't agree with the

public opinion because that's the world we live in.

We had a case with judges, they were against the pay

raise. I don't know if that ever got through. It was a big dispute in here; they

were entitled to a raise. We voted against it, we pushed back on it. Even that

wasn't given a lot of airplay. But give five cents extra to a politician – it's

amazing, it's amazing. We feed into that because we keep bending into it. I'll

say it again: We should not be here talking about this. I feel uncomfortable

here talking about it. I don't mind speaking my mind on it because I have no

problem speaking my view. People can agree, can disagree. That's fine; I have no

issue with that.

This needs to be done in the proper avenue and it's not

this way. Do you want to go and get a totally independent – someone to come in

that is totally removed and say you're overpaid. Roll the dice that way. No one

will criticize that, but dare go the other way. How does this change? In 10

years' time, do we say that MHAs are in a 23-year wage freeze? I tell you right

now, the people who are going to sign up to come in and do this job – it's going

to get a lot shorter because this is not an easy job. This is not nine-to-five;

this is not Monday to Friday. There is nothing easy about this job.

I know newly elected Members there – obviously some

took on minister roles too – they'll quickly learn. It depends on your district.

I know the new Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is in a rural

district. I'd say her plate is going to be quite full with constituent issues.

Mine is and I'm in a metro area so I can only imagine. No one here doesn't

deserve what they get, but no one here doesn't deserve to get an increase in

life. It is just fundamentally wrong. I could have gotten up here 30 seconds

after the Government House Leader and said, yeah, we support, we understand and

sat down – I'm sitting anyway – but I couldn't let myself do it because I don't

think it's right.

Am I going to support this bill? Sure, we are. We have

no choice. We understand. If we never, it's going to pass too, but that's not

the issue. The issue is why do we just accept the fact we can't accept this, we

can't do this – no, no, we can't do that. If that was a cut and we were here

today trying to stop that cut, the media would be lined up out in the scrum area

waiting for us. They're not today. I'll just leave everyone with that thought.

I have nothing further to say. Those are my thoughts

and I think I've expressed them loud and clear, and anyone else who are willing

to rebut, agree or disagree.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Any

other speakers?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to take long, but as is my practice, any

matter that comes before this House – I was elected by the people of Mount Pearl

- Southlands to have a voice and to cast a vote. I wanted to make sure that I'm

clear this time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support the motion. I'm sure

that the motion is going to be supported unanimously. A couple of things. First

off, I have to admit that I didn't even know that we were due a raise, to be

honest with you. I never even thought about it. This recommendation that was

made four years ago or whatever it was, I forgot all about it; didn't even know

it was coming.

I look at it from the perspective that I just applied

or I just reapplied for a job. I had my job interview and I got the job. Thank

you to the people of Mount Pearl - Southlands. When I applied for that job I

knew what the salary and what the benefits were, but I applied and I accepted

it. I wasn't looking for more than what I'm getting now, so I will make that

point.

Again, in good conscience, as the Member for Conception

Bay South said, I could sit back and say nothing, I suppose, and not get in any

kind of trouble whatsoever or criticism, but that's not my way either. My only

point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, to kind of agree with the Member for

Conception Bay South, is the fact that we have an independent process. It's not

about the raise, it's not about recommendations have been made in the past or

will be made in the future as it relates to pensions or benefits or any of that.

That's not the issue for me. It's not about the extra money. Like I said, I'm

happy with what I'm getting and I'm satisfied to get what I'm getting for the

next four years. More than happy with the salary. That's not the issue.

We do have an independent process through the MCRC, as

the Member has said. That was put in place so that we would not be put in this

kind of position in the House of Assembly to be deciding on benefits and

remuneration for Members. It would be a total conflict of interest, quite

frankly, for us to sit down in this Chamber and decide our own salaries, our own

benefits and so on. That's why it was removed. That's why there was an

independent process put in place.

Regardless of this 5 per cent or whatever it is – and

like I said, that's irrelevant to me – in terms of the process as we move

forward, I have to agree that I don't see any value in having an MCRC and going

through that process and any cost or anything else that might be associated to

it. It's a total waste of time and it's a total waste of money if we're not

going to abide by the recommendations and we're going to, as the Member said,

just start cherry-picking – we'll accept this, we won't accept that.

I understand why the motion is coming before the House

today. I absolutely get the fact where we are in tough financial times. I voted

against the judges getting the salaries for that very reason, so I'd be a

hypocrite to say it's okay for the judges, but it's not okay for me. I

understand all that and that's why I will support the motion. The

part I do want

to agree with, with the Member for Conception Bay South, is the concept of the

MCRC. What's the point of having it, an independent process, if we're going to

be changing things here in the House of Assembly on a whim? Whether it be the

right thing to do, whether it be the right political thing to do, whatever the

motivation might be, this is really not the forum to be discussing this.

It should be done. I kind of liked the idea the Member

for Conception Bay South said, actually, that it probably would've been more

appropriate if we had taken this question of the 5 per cent or whatever it was,

the averages that were recommended last time – probably would've been a better

decision if we had given that to the new MCRC that will be set up and say,

here's what was recommended but we want you to have a look at it based on

today's fiscal circumstances. Based on what we did with the judges and

everything else, have a look at it and you determine whether you think it should

be 5 per cent. Maybe it should be the same 4 per cent that the public service

received. Maybe it should be a lesser amount or maybe it should be deferred to a

later time. Maybe we should not get it at all.

I think that would've been a better process and it

wouldn't have put us in a conflict. To be honest with you, I feel like I'm in a

conflict of interest right now even talking about it. I feel that we're all kind

of in a conflict discussing our own benefits and salaries. It's a very

uncomfortable conversation, like the Member for Conception Bay South said, I

agree, but it's here before us on the floor so we really have no choice but

discuss it.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I kind of concur with the idea that

it should go to the new MCRC to determine. This is not necessarily the

appropriate place. With that said, it's here, as I said. I'm satisfied with what

I'm getting. I signed up for the current salary. I didn't even know about this

increase. Like I said, I voted against the judges getting their increase. I'm

not going to be hypocritical and vote against this motion when I voted against

the judges getting theirs.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be clear from the start, I will support this. I

have some sympathy, certainly, towards what the Member for Conception Bay South

is saying; certainly, the arguments with regard to attracting good people.

I can tell you that in my former job I was well

compensated, but it was a 24-7 job, 365 days a year, as I used to say to people.

I used to drive people up the wall when I would say that but that was it. As my

communication's officer would say, obviously didn't have too much of an effect

on me. I was no longer Jim Dinn, private citizen. I was always the president and

any comment I made in the public – I couldn't call in to an

Open Line show and voice my opinion as

the private citizen because it was always going to be reflective on the

association.

That's very much the same thing here, as an MHA. If you

want to know just how exposing it can be, you can think of the recent example

involving a federal Liberal MP who was inadvertently exposed and then shared.

Now, I will say it was reprehensible for that to be done, but that tells you the

level at which you are open to public scrutiny even for something that you did

inadvertently. Every word is criticized, every decision, even your dress at

time.

I understand that and I'm sympathetic towards many of

the points he makes. It's also about attracting good people, because I can tell

you there are a lot of people who, in the same breath, will criticize an MHA or

a politician and at the other hand, in the very next breath, will say: I

wouldn't want that job because it is relentless in many ways. I know just what

comes into my office in the form of calls that you're asked to deal with.

My district is small and I have a lot of sympathy, I

guess, too, for MHAs who come from rural districts where they cover a very broad

geographical area and they got not one – I don't even have a full city to answer

to. I have part of a city, but to every council that comes along that wants you

to show up – I remember I was speaking to the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay

and talked about just the demands when he when he would get back to his

district, the events he had lined up.

When I was first elected, I started to feel guilty,

like I had nothing much to do, because the only time they would call me, which

is often, is, hey, I have a problem with housing and so on and so forth. It's

not always that they need the help of the MHA, because really a lot of the

issues they deal with are going to be tied to the City of St. John's. I have

that extra support, you might say.

But I will argue this, in many ways, there are

benefits. I look at the pensions for the MHAs: far superior, far better than

most other public servants or anyone else in the private sector. In many ways, I

think we do get well compensated. I think there needs to be a look at the

independent process, but I'll go on step further than the MCRC that's been

referred to here because public sectors unions, and most other unions,

negotiate. If you had offered to me, as a leader of the NLTA, hey, we're going

to set up an independent commission and they're going to look at all the facts,

no problem. But in negotiations, guess what? It's the government that has all

the power, as much as they might claim otherwise, because they have legislative

authority behind them.

In many ways, it would be an interesting process if,

indeed, there was a committee representing MHAs and you had an independent

committee representing the citizens of this province who engage in those

negotiations and say: here's what we (inaudible), now we will go on strike,

sure. But I think, in many ways, if you want an independent body, let's look at

some sort of negotiations. Also, as far as I'm concerned, then maybe it needs to

come into effect, not for the current group of MHAs but for the next people who

will be elected.

Maybe there should be term limits on MHAs. Maybe we

need to start looking at bringing new people in, if you want to really reform

things and shake things up. Maybe there's a time limit, a best-before, an expiry

date, and so we start bringing in other people and we start that engagement,

that renewal.

Better yet, when it comes to the pension, maybe it

should be like anyone else, it takes 30 years, 35 years or more before people

can access their pension. If, indeed, they do retire after 10 years, it's

deferred if they move on to another job. So there are plenty of ways if we want

to look at making it more palatable to the general public. As I said, I'm

sympathetic to the demands of this job, I felt them in my previous job.

Here's the other thing that's the issue for me, because

I'm looking at my constituency assistant, and not just mine, but I'm assuming

the work that my consistency assistant is doing is being done by every CA of

every MHA in this House. I can tell you the amount of work that these people do

for us is remarkable, and yet their salaries are pretty darn close to poverty,

in many ways. The compensation is lacking.

I think in many ways I would dearly love that if we're

going to talk – before salaries and compensation, before we start talking about

ours, I think we need to start looking at compensating and re-evaluating the

compensation for our constituency assistants. The ones who are on the front

line, who take the phone calls first, who often shield us from some of the more

irate comments, who probably soften the blow or whatever else, who do that work,

who keep us on track and so on and so forth. They're invaluable. That's where,

if I was going to put an increase, I would dearly love to see these people have

that increase.

Secondly, I look at the cleaners in this building who

are not a part of the compensation package, but are in a private company. They

are not making near enough to, in many cases, earn a decent living.

I think in many ways we are sort of the front people,

we are the public face of this House of Assembly, of government – we are. But

it's the people behind us, the people that don't get the recognition, that don't

get out in the public that need to be recognized. Not only recognized but

compensated and recognized for the work they do.

Yes, I do support this motion. Yes, I think in many

ways take it out of here, because like I said, I'm sympathetic to what the

Member for Conception Bay South has proposed, but I think there are others ahead

of us who are really in need of compensation. I don't know if it is something,

but I'm smelling something burning here.

I'll stop there, Mr. Speaker, and I'll leave it at

that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't going to speak to this and I can very much

appreciate all the sensitivities that my peers in this room have very eloquently

expressed, but I think it is important, as my other independent colleague has

just indicated, to weigh in and put our thoughts out there. I just want to put a

couple of thoughts quickly out there.

I look back at my own professional experience and I

look at other situations where an entity has signed up for a job and they've

walked in to a situation, full expectations as to what the compensation was

going to be, what the job was going to be and so on, and then you suddenly are

put forward with the position where you have to somehow withdraw, retract,

retreat from that. Then, understanding the public pressure and scrutiny that is

on each and every one of us, yeah, this is a very awkward bill.

It's coming at a time when many of us, as my colleague

for Conception Bay South indicated, we all remember those heady times of 2016

with the MCRC: that was not a gentle process. I think for those of us that were

they will recall back to that situation where I would suggest some of us at that

time were looking for so much more. I have always thought that when you step

into a political life, it really can't be about the compensation; if it is, you

are beholden to a situation that is going to get you in a lot of trouble.

It can't be about the job or the responsibility: you

have only a single responsibility, which is responding to the constituents

within your district. I've focused on that and all the decisions I've made,

that's been my priority. That said, I would also agree with my colleague for

Mount Pearl - Southlands that I didn't know there was a raise coming; I didn't

have a clue. In fact, when I go to fill out my income tax form every year I

don't know what I make. I go and I look. My preoccupation is doing my job. I

leave it to the MCRC to come up with a determination of what's fair for the work

we do and I would rely on that body.

I'm finding myself very puzzled why this bill is here.

I don't understand where it's coming from, why this situation – if an

independent process and body has determined that there is in fact a percentage

increase that should be allocated for all the good reasons that the lead speaker

here for Conception Bay South indicated, then I'm not sure what the rationale is

for pulling back on that.

I constantly hear, when there is an announcement of any

kind in any district – and the critics and the criticism will come out: yeah,

but what about this situation or what about them and so on? Well, you know what;

there is a whole bunch of needs in this province. This province is facing

challenges like we've never seen before, not in recent memory. As the Premier

said and I am focused on his big three – and, as I said, I offered a fourth –

there are big crises facing us. There's the fiscal situation, there's our

demographic situation, we have a worldwide pandemic and we have this little

situation called climate change.

We are going to need the best people in this province

to step forward. If situations are such that someone says I don't know if I can

take on that leadership job, I have a family, I have debts, I have bills, but

I'm also I'm walking into a situation where the compensation may be limiting to

the point that I can't put my name forward, I think that's a shame for the

entire province.

I just wanted to put that out there. I wanted to say

this is an incredibly awkward situation. I'm also just contemplating in my mind

– and perhaps this is a very transparent thought, but I don't know if there's

even a point of privilege here in terms of how this proceeding and ruling is

affecting our ability to do our job and, more importantly, for me, for the

generations that will come to sit in these seats because, again, as my colleague

said, we won't be here forever. As tough as this job is, we need to make sure

that those financial constraints are not going to be limiting to attracting the

best to tackle the worst that is before our province at this time.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to speak a few minutes on this. I heard

the Member for Lake Melville speak and a few others earlier. This is a very

awkward situation, as the Member for Lake Melville mentioned. We go out and get

an independent review – report – and then you come back now and s because of the

financial situation in this province we're just going to take it and throw it

out through the window. I remember back in 2016 when the Cabinet took a

reduction. Do you know what the sentiment was around when it was put out in the

public that we voluntarily took a reduction? They're getting paid too much

anyway. That was the comment.

If we are, if we're not, that's a different debate, but

if you notice that except for the Cabinet ministers and people who have

positions – and, of course, it's an awkward situation that you're talking about

yourself and we're all going to survive. But do you know, except for people in

the Cabinet positions here and Speaker and Deputy Speaker, there is not a person

in this House on the sunshine list? Do you realize that? Every time something

happens, we want to put ourselves out as the martyrs, saying that we're going to

start the change.

I have to ask the question, and this is to the

government: By taking this report – which we all agreed to, went out and came

back – are we going to make any more substantial changes this year in

government, or are we just going to say, here's what we did. We heard: Well,

we're not going to make any big changes this year – with a deficit of over $2

billion and we're not going to make any changes. What we're going to do now is

government introduces – okay, we're going to slice this to show what we're

doing, but it's just like putting your hand in the water. That's what this is

going to be.

Me, personally, I think it's just symbolic to say out

to the general public, here's what we did. We're not going to allow the

politicians to have the 3 or 4 per cent raise, yet we're not going to do

anything about the structural deficit that we have in this province. If you ever

want to look at smoke and mirrors, if you ever want to look at the ideas of how

we're going to tackle the deficit in this province, what we should be doing is

saying bring something substantial to this House on how we're going to reduce

this deficit. I said it before.

I know the minister is bringing it in later about

bonuses, but for four years now, five years – and I know we stopped it for a

while – that we're going to bring agencies, boards and commissions in line with

government, but we're not doing it. What are we doing? Symbolically, we're going

to go out and tell the people we didn't give them a 1, 2, 3, or 4 per cent

raise. Of course, this is going to pass anyway.

Then, of course, with politicians, what you do – and I

said this before and I'll say it again – as politicians, if we're on the front

lines making the decisions of what's going to happen and when you always say –

and this is a prime example, where an independent body came back and said: Look,

here's what we all agreed to, and it's done. Then once you keep selling yourself

short, what happens? Mark my words, what happens is that people in this province

lose respect.

Because if we keep selling ourselves short, if we keep

saying to ourselves that we're not worth this, we're not worth what this person

recommended, what are people going to think? It's not about the money, because

if this government brought in some substantial initiative to reduce the deficit,

I'd say every Member in this House would say: Yeah, we're doing this, we're

going to try to bring the province back in line and back in shape, financially.

But by taking this little thing, putting us all up and saying we're going to be

the martyrs, yet not attacking the structural deficit of this province, this is

just symbolic. That's all that this is.

What's going to happen? Some people are going to go out

in the media and say: Oh, we turned it down. People are going to start right

away: Well, they're getting too much anyway. They don't do anything anyway. When

the House is not open everybody has the impression that politicians don't do

anything anyway. We, as politicians, did it back in 2016 and it wasn't even

mentioned, no one even knew, no one even cared. That's exactly what's happening

again today.

I heard a few people speak: Well, why do we even have

the Committee? When we vote today not to do this, we should vote to disband the

Committee. Why have the Committee?

I'll give you a good example. If the government

appoints a commission to bring in a report, the next time the commission brings

in a report, let's take it and throw it out the window. That's exactly what's

happening here now. Why are we using this Committee to bring in a report when

we're saying we're just going to go against your Committee? This here is just to

ban the Committee, just throw the Committee out through the window, because what

it is, is that we're almost embarrassing them for doing the work.

We set up a process that was going to happen, we're

selling ourselves short, and above all – above all – I have to put this on the

record, there's nothing substantial coming in here for the structural deficit.

This is symbolic of what's going to happen to this province. As we heard, there

are going to be no major changes in this year's budget, no major changes in this

year's budget, yet here we are again.

Let's bring something into this House of Assembly

that's substantial. Let's bring things in here of how we can make changes to

this province. When we are paying down on the debt, the second or third highest

amount in this province that we're paying on and we're coming in now here and

saying: Okay, b'ys, we're going to make you all – because we want to make

ourselves look good out in the public without doing substantial changes. This is

where I have a problem with it. I actually have a problem with it. Once we keep

putting ourselves down as politicians, people are going to be looking at the

same thing. That's just the way it is. This is not fighting over a few dollars

here or there, this is the process that's in place, this is respect, and I'll

say again, until we get things moving.

I'll close on that note, Mr. Speaker. I urge the

government, you're going to have two four months' Interim Supply, I urge the

government, when you bring in that budget, let's have something substantial in

the budget that we're going to reduce the deficit in this province and get this

province back on the right track instead of coming in here in this House on a

Wednesday morning and doing something just symbolic that's not going to make any

major changes to the deficit of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or

they're just going to say: Okay, we're just going to do something to ourselves.

This will get approved today. When this is approved

today, I would like for the Government House Leader to make a motion to disband

the Committee and the process that we put in place. Because if we're going to

keep doing that every time there's a process put in place, throw it out, so the

next time that the government brings in a committee or sets up some functional

committee to bring something to the House of Assembly, hopefully when one of us

stands up and say we should throw it out, you're going to agree, because that's

what you're doing today. That's what you're doing today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll close my few words. I look

forward to the budget and, hopefully, there'll be something substantial in the

budget.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he

will close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First and foremost, thank you to everybody for the

input this morning. I have more than a page of notes, but I won't go into them

all. There are a couple of quick things I think are important that I take a

moment to point out.

First and foremost, I've asked for it and I'm not going

to have time to get it, because I didn't realize debate. I asked for

Hansard from when we had the very

similar debate a few months ago when it came to judges. If I could have gotten

the Hansard here in time for my

closing argument I would have talked about the things that the Members opposite

said about an independent process back a few months ago when it came to judges,

very similar process. It was recommended by a tribunal. It came into this House

and I can remember the previous Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying

this is not the time.

That was repeated literally dozens of times and maybe

in my budget speeches in the days to come I'll actually bring that

Hansard in as a reminder of some of

the things that were said in that debate about an independent tribunal just a

few months ago about the level of independence of that.

I know the former Minister of Justice sat through that

in a role that he had to take that day that was very, very uncomfortable for him

as well. As we said that day, that actually led to court action. Maybe I'll keep

that for a budget debate somewhere down the road.

But on a more positive note, the Member for CBS raised

the idea, this discussion needs to continue into the new Management Commission

as we set directions for the new MCRC. I look forward to those discussions.

The Member for St. John's Centre raised an important

issue about constituency assistants. I think that's something that we all agree

on here in this House. It's something that the Management Commission and the

Speaker's office did some work on in the 49th session and I think it will be

very much – I know from discussions I've already had with the Opposition House

Leaders – something that we will be bringing back to the table very quickly when

we get back to the Management Commission table.

Again, thank you everybody for your contribution to the

debate this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 10 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administration Act. (Bill 10)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

CROCKER:

Presently.

SPEAKER:

Presently.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The House of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,” read a second time,

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

10)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader

the following resolution:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall

not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 2021, but shall continue to sit

and conduct government business and if not earlier adjourned the Speaker shall

adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER:

Any

speakers to the motion?

We can put this to question?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That notwithstanding Standing Order 8 and the

Parliamentary Calendar previously established for 2021, the Parliamentary

Calendar for 2021 shall be revised as follows:

That this House will adjourn on April 22, 2021, and

resume sitting on May 31, 2021;

That this House will sit from May 31, 2021, until June

30, 2021, and that no constituency week shall be taken during that sitting time;

That this House shall resume sitting on October 18,

2021;

That a constituency week shall be taken the week of

November 8, 2021;

And that this House shall adjourn on November 18, 2021.

SPEAKER:

Any

speakers?

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only concern I have with that is I'm from a rural

area: a lot of times where we're sitting here for five weeks, we always had a

constituency week in between. Now, we're going for five straights weeks and

there are a lot of times you want to go meet a lot of councils and discuss the

roads, water and sewer. I don't know why we have to go for five straight weeks;

we're shutting down now for five weeks, come back and go five straight week.

I just want to put that out as the Member from a rural

district. A lot of times in the summertime, that's when you meet councils and

you do a lot of different things with the roadwork and different things around.

It is easier, I guess, if you are in here but when you're out and things pile up

during the summer, it is a bit more difficult. Then you have to drive across –

you won't get home until Friday and you're back again Sunday.

I don't know the rationale of shutting down for five

weeks and coming back for five weeks straight. I just want to put that on the

record as a Member from a rural district, when there are a lot of things to be

done.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 9.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007,

Bill 9, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act

And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.” (Bill 9)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we are here regarding proposed amendments to the

Energy Corporation Act and the

Hydro Corporation Act, 2007 . I do have

some prepared remarks that normally I don't refer to, but I want to ensure that

what I say is clear and understood, and not garbled. Again, I will do that,

although I'll have plenty of time during this debate to listen to all points of

view from around this Chamber, making notes and also try to provide some context

as to the origin of this, just today and yesterday, what has gone on.

What I can say is that yesterday this bill was tabled

in the House. This morning there was a media availability. Yesterday, there were

availabilities for all Members of the House of Assembly to be briefed on the

content of the bill. We're here today for second reading and, hopefully,

Committee. Hopefully, we will move on with swift passage of this piece of this

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the payment of bonuses at Nalcor and its

subsidiaries has and continues to be an issue of public concern, especially

given our fiscal situation. I think everybody will recall last year when we had

the release of the public sector Compensation Disclosure listing, we committed

to eliminating bonuses for these positions. At that time, I did follow up and

notify Nalcor in writing of my intention and stated then, I quote: “In light of

the unprecedented economic challenges facing this province and the devastating

impact of the Muskrat Falls project delays and cost overruns, the people of this

province as shareholder of Nalcor Energy cannot afford to make sure

unnecessarily generous payments.”

On December 10 of last year, we introduced a motion to

seek leave, the same one that we are now. Obviously, we had to re-enter it due

to the House being dissolved and there being a general election. I would note

and, I think it is noteworthy, that we are on our third, basically, official day

of business and we are here in second reading. I would say that we have moved

quickly on bringing this piece of legislation back into the House for debate and

passage.

Today, we continue on. Mr. Speaker, the

Energy Corporation Act or the ECA

governs Nalcor and the activities of its subsidiaries except for Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro with respect to oil and gas, Lower Churchill development.

When Nalcor was first established in 2007 the

Hydro Corporation Act, 2007 , which governs Hydro, was amended and

their shares were then vested into Nalcor.

Nalcor has 12 subsidiaries: Hydro, CF(L)Co, Twin Falls

Power Corporation, Nalcor Energy - Oil and Gas Inc., Nalcor Energy Marketing

Corporation, Muskrat Falls Corporation, Labrador Transmission Corporation,

Labrador-Island Link Operating Corporation, Lower Churchill Management

Corporation, Labrador-Island Link General Partner Corporation, Labrador-Island

Link Holding Corporation and the Labrador-Island Limited Link Partnership.

These bills provide the board of directors of each

company with the authority to set the terms of service and the remuneration of

their respective employees.

Now, the amendments that we are bringing forward for

consideration are to (

a) clarify that Nalcor must act in accordance with the

priorities of the provincial government in carrying out its objects; (

b) to

provide broad authority for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to give direction

to the boards of Nalcor and Hydro related to remuneration and terms of service

for non-bargaining unit employees; (

c) state that direction given by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not constitute constructive dismissal or a

breach of contract nor a claim for compensation; state that no cause of action

or other proceedings shall arise from any direction given by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council; and, finally, state that there will be no

entitlement to compensation as a result from any direction given by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

The boards of directors of Nalcor and Hydro, as well,

as the boards of each subsidiary, currently have the exclusive authority under

their respective enabling legislation to hire employees and establish the terms

and conditions of their remuneration and their employment. I believe it's

actually subsection 12(1) of the ECA; subsection 11(1) of the HCA.

In order to override this power, we need to explicitly

amend to allow for this. This gives the LGIC the broad authority to issue a

unanimous shareholder agreement pursuant to the

Corporations Act , which will provide direction to the above noted

boards to alter the terms of services of employment, including remuneration and

bonuses.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that the purpose of

these amendments we are bringing today is not to target individual employees. We

are doing what is in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador,

particularly during these fiscal times that we face. I do hope that we will have

support from all corners of this House, given that there has been a significant

amount of media and commentary from various parties on this issue, especially

during the last number of months.

Again, we've heard a lot of different things said

talking about termination and things like that. This bill is not that. This bill

is providing authority for us to set direction and to allow for the change to

remuneration and bonuses. They are enabling in nature, Mr. Speaker. This bill

does accomplish that act on its own. This bill allows for the ability to enable

us to take the actions that are necessary.

Following approval of this legislation, there has to be

a further process to determine details on the next steps. I will point out that

this type of legislation has been brought in other jurisdictions, the same

process; you bring the enabling legislation and then you do the necessary work

behind the scenes. We don't have all of the information that we need to allow

for the proper determination of what action has to be taken. We have that broad

information right now, but we need to dig deep and find this information. This

legislation will allow us to do that.

What I can say is that I've guaranteed on numerous

occasions that work starts immediately, but we need to get this bill done first.

It's our intention to proceed in a timely manner once the appropriate work is

done, but we're going to be moving quickly and swiftly on this. These amendments

follow a commitment by our government to reduce costs at Nalcor and Newfoundland

Hydro.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, there will be more to say.

I'll have another opportunity to speak to this bill later on in second reading

and obviously during the Committee stage. At this point, I would like to thank

you for the opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation and

I will take my place.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's good to have the opportunity to speak to this

bill. It's a very important piece of legislation, which I would argue is long

overdue; it hasn't moved swift enough.

As I see it, this bill makes four changes to the

Energy Corporation Act . It modifies

the language to clarify and specify the objectives of Nalcor. The new language,

which is added to the Energy Corporation

Act , reads: “… in accordance with the priorities of the government of the

province ….” It allows Cabinet to give direction to the board of Nalcor on

matters of remuneration and terms of service and Nalcor must comply with the

direction given by Cabinet.

It provides protection to the Government of

Newfoundland from civil lawsuits regarding the directions given to the Nalcor

board, and it specifies that directions given to the board do not constitute a

constructive dismissal or breach of contract. Individuals who have contracts

changed are not entitled to any compensation.

Like the Minister said, I agree that there has been an

overwhelming public concern about the bonuses paid to Nalcor, not just in this

past year but in the past six years and possibly before that. I think this is a

very smart move going forward, certainly given our current fiscal situation. It

addresses one of the concerns very quickly, hopefully, once we get past this

stage into the second stage.

Nalcor is a huge entity in Newfoundland and Labrador

and I don't think most of the public realizes the sheer size of it. I thank the

minister for listing out the 12 subsidiaries because I believe the general

public looks at Nalcor as a single entity and doesn't realize the scope and

breadth of their power.

The fact that the board has had direct authority over

pay, remuneration and bonuses, without input from government, have always been a

concern of not only the general public, but probably some members inside of

Nalcor. I think that this bill could go further and allow the public and the

government to ATIPP Nalcor: I think that is long overdue and needs to happen. It

should be a part of this. It's not in here.

The fact that the minister has indicated that this is

not targeted at specific employees I think goes a long way to putting people's

minds at rest. This is not a witch hunt. I think it is a much-needed move of

authority to give government the powers that they need to have, especially, like

I said, during these difficult financial times.

It doesn't affect unionized workers, which I think is

very important to highlight; it's for non-unionized management positions. We've

all seen the size of some of these bonuses. It's funny that we talked this

morning about MHAs' compensation. We look to these bonuses and see that some of

these bonuses are much larger than what MHAs make in here annually and they

receive it as a bonus.

It is a first step, like the minister said. I do

believe that we need to act on this more swiftly. There is an urgency to this, I

believe, given our current financial situation, not only from a

public-perspective standpoint, but from the reality of money that's paid out to

the individuals that receive these large bonuses.

I would like to understand at some point – and I'm sure

this will come up in debate a little further – how we come to the decisions on

what these rollbacks will be, if there are rollbacks, if they affect everyone,

if they're just based on individuals and if it's performance oriented. There are

a lot of things that we need to consider when we go to do this.

I do believe this is a strong effort so government

doesn't have to face lawsuits after this comes into effect, which also shelters

us. Questions as to whether or not it affects new employees or new hires, versus

people who've been employed there for a long time, I think it raises a lot more

questions than it answers right now.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, Nalcor is an entity in

Newfoundland that employs a lot of people. It's a big part of what we do as a

province. Certainly, after the split with OilCo, it's a different entity. Nalcor

has existed for quite some time and there has been a lot of good work that's

gone on, not everything is bad. So it's important that we look at this with a

microscope and make sure that we're making the right decisions.

I believe this is a great first step. I encourage the

minister to put the secondary legislation to the Table as quickly as he can. We

will be supporting this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to reiterate this is something that was a long

time coming. We've seen every time the list would be published the outcry from

the general public on remuneration and bonuses paid there, more so after we

started to see stuff come down from Muskrat Falls. It seemed that the general

public did not have an appetite for that kind of a bonus system.

It's harder for the general public to watch, because

Nalcor is technically owned by the people of this province; it's our company as

a whole. To see that we don't have a say or anything like that, when it comes to

this kind of behaviour, especially after everything we've seen with Muskrat

Falls and with everything that's written in the Muskrat Falls report.

Seeing that we will start to correct these wrongs is a

good step forward. Like the minister said, this is just an enabling thing. It's

important that we keep down that path because he said there's more stuff that

has to be found afterwards. A first step that we need to be moving towards is

accountability: accountability for people's actions, accountability for projects

and accountability of something that belongs as an asset to this province.

Accountability is really important with this.

To see that this was never put into the initial stages

of Nalcor was also worrying. To think that the mechanisms were there to do such

large payouts for bonuses and then projects not receiving the right timelines,

deadlines and things like that, but yet still individuals did get bonuses for

it.

When we do more like this – because this is not the

only Crown corporation belonging to this province as well – we also have to look

at other Crown corporations and stuff that we have. Do we have similar policies

in place right now? Are we required to do something like this at other Crown

agencies? Maybe it's a broad scope that we look at everything, any asset that

belongs to this province be treated with the same thing. They all belong to the

people of this province and they have to be accountable to the people of the

province.

I do support this, me and my colleague here. We are

hopeful that maybe we will see more things when it comes to Crown corporations,

agencies and boards, that they continue to be accountable to the general public

of this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm only going to spend a minute on this also.

I have to commend the minister for bringing this in.

This is something that has been a sore thumb for a lot of people in Newfoundland

and Labrador over the years. I know even the minister himself, at times, made a

commitment – I think it was a year ago, a year and a half ago – that this would

be brought in and this is the first step of it. I commend the minister for

taking this action.

Also, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has been

raising this for a nice while. I can tell you his bringing this up has been

ringing in my ears for a nice while, about the compensation at Nalcor. I have to

commend him for keeping this issue alive also.

To the government itself, in the bigger part, this is a

great first step. I remember back in 2017, 2018, we were going to bring all the

boards, agencies and commissions in line with government. From the reports that

we saw then, that would save hundreds of millions of dollars. I know this is a

first step and this is part of the accountability for Nalcor. It gives

government the opportunity to insist that everybody is treated equally. As was

mentioned by the Member for Terra Nova, this doesn't go after the union workers;

this is the non-union. That was a great point also.

I urge government, once this starts and the process, to

look at all agencies, boards and commissions. This is just one because this is

the one out in the public all the time. The reviews that we've seen with many

more agencies, boards and commissions of the government are an opportunity to

save a lot of funds, a lot of money. I'll look forward to the next step and the

legislation, but I have to commend the government and the minister for bringing

this forth.

This has always been out in the general public. When

you sit down and you see people, like in the pandemic, people losing their jobs

and people getting these huge bonuses, we all sit down and say, jeepers. Even

people in this Legislature in our private chats: Man, how did this happen?

It's a great initiative, a great first step. It will

bring accountability to the government because at the end of the day, whoever it

is, the Liberals, PC, NDP – whoever is in government are the ones that have to

be accountable to the public over this. It is the general revenue funds of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and now you're taking the accountability

and putting it back into the hands of where it should be, in government, to

ensure that the general purse of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador are going to be looked at and disbursed in a proper manner.

I will be supporting this bill. I look forward to

further discussions on it. I look forward to when the legislation is put in

place so that we can sit down and dissect the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to take more than a couple of minutes because

this is a subject that's near and dear to my heart. First of all, I just want to

again acknowledge and thank the minister for taking this initiative. I certainly

will be supporting this bill 100 per cent – no, 1,000 per cent – on behalf of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it's definitely been a source of

outrage for many people throughout this province. For me, bonuses are one side

of it; we must remember bonuses are not something that happens just at Nalcor.

There are lots of private industries that have bonuses.

In my former life, before getting in as an MHA, I had a

bonus program. Certainly nowhere near the amounts that we're talking about here,

but it was a small bonus program. You had your goals and objectives set for the

year and you do your review. If you met those goals and objectives or exceeded

them, then it tied into a bonus. It even tied into the annual raise in my case;

it was sort of a dual thing.

It's not something that you don't see. Perhaps the

scale is what outrages people the most. One of the most offensive pieces around

the bonuses, at least for me, I go back to DarkNL and the Liberty report. It's

one thing for people to get a performance bonus based on their performance, but

when we had DarkNL and the Liberty report came out, the Liberty report said that

the reason for DarkNL was that basic maintenance wasn't being done at Holyrood.

It was not some extraordinary circumstance. Basic maintenance that you would do

anywhere in any industry on any kind of equipment. That's just a normal

day-to-day program that you would have.

They weren't even doing basic maintenance.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were out in the dark and the cold for – I can't

remember how long it was now, but it was a substantial period of time. Seniors

had to be taken out of, I think it was Maplewood apartments, in the Minister of

Education's district – or it was his district. I don't know. It might be changed

now. At the time, in Maplewood apartments they were taking seniors out of there.

I believe the roof collapsed on the Village Mall and there were people who were

put out of work.

I had a gentleman in my district who actually died as a

result of DarkNL because of the generator in his shed, carbon monoxide

poisoning. There were all kinds of horrific stories. On the heels of that, these

big bonuses were handed out by Nalcor. When the $6-million man was asked how

could you justify these bonuses? He said we had a good safety record.

Are you kidding me? Their one function was to keep the

lights on. That was their job. That's their core mandate, is to keep the lights

on, keep the heat on. They failed in that because of a failure to do basic

maintenance, and all the bigwigs get the big corporate bonuses because we had a

good safety record. I mean, you wonder why people were outraged. It's no wonder.

Of course, now, as we move on from that into the

Muskrat Falls inquiry and the scathing report that came out of that with some of

these guys who were fudging numbers, presenting false information and hiding

risk reports – everyone saw the inquiry and what came out of it. Some of those

characters are still roaming the halls, still getting huge salaries and still

getting bonuses.

So this is a start, and I commend the minister for this

start. But I want to emphasize the fact that in my opinion, at least, this

should only be a start. There still has to be accountability. We've still seen

zero accountability, as far as I'm concerned, for some of the people who were

named in the Muskrat Falls inquiry. They still have not been held accountable

and that needs to happen as well.

I will say that I understand that this is an enabling

legislation, which is fine, and I'm sure it's not the minister's intent, as he

said, to target anybody. First of all, it's been said this is not affecting the

unionized employees, which is good. Also, there are a lot of people who are

non-bargaining unit employees who are not necessarily the controlling minds of

Nalcor and NL Hydro; there are support staff and so on.

I'm sure that this is not meant to target them. No

different than anybody else, if these people signed up for a job and they've

been working there for a number of years and working hard, as the vast majority,

I'm sure, do, and they're earning a salary, I'm certainly not supporting that

we're just going to rip those salaries from beneath them and all of a sudden

say: We're going to give everybody now a 20 or a 30 per cent cut. If that's what

this is all about, I'm certainly not supporting that and I'm sure that that's

not the intent here. We just have to be mindful of where this is being applied

and how it's being applied.

I would say to the minister, one of the things that may

help in the deliberations, perhaps, is the fact that – I wish I had the dates in

front of me now, but back when Terry Paddon was the Auditor General, I first

wrote him back in – I'm not sure if it's 2016, 2017. I wrote him two or three

times. We had two or three telephone conversations. We had a couple of in-person

meetings about trying to get him into Nalcor. There was a bit of resistance at

first, but eventually he agreed and he had his press conference, my God, back

about five years ago now, I suppose, four years, over on Pippy Place.

I was there sat at the boardroom table when he was

making the announcement that he was going into Nalcor, finally. They did go in,

but there were delays. They went in; they came out and so on. He left. Ms.

Mullaley came into place as the Auditor General. I met with her two or three

times, called her. She said: We're still working on it and so on and the report

will be out this fall. Then the fall came and, well, it got delayed. It will be

the spring and then it will be the fall again.

The last conversation I had I guess is about a year ago

now – well, right after Ms. Mullaley left – with the acting Auditor General. She

said: Oh, yes, the report is done and whatever. It just has to be finalized. I

said: Well, when are you going to release it? I've been waiting now for like

five years. She indicated it was ready to go, but now COVID came, I suppose, and

I don't know when the report is ready. I'm sure it's just in there, sat on a

desk at this point. I intend on meeting with Ms. Hanrahan at the earliest

opportunity. Hopefully –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

LANE:

And I'm sure she looks forward to it as well, as the minister says, but I will,

and hopefully we're going to see that report.

Unfortunately, they didn't look at all the things I

wanted them to look at because there were a number of issues that I had that I

thought should have been looked at. One of them being the fact that I can

remember in the budget of 2016 and after the then minister of Finance gave her

speech and all the boys just left en masse, the board of directors, they all

quit.

On the way out the door, there was a story on CBC about

people being in conflicts of interest and so on; board members had been in

conflicts of interest: load the guns I believe was the headline or talked about

it. That never did get investigated as to what conflicts of interest the board

members were in; makes me wonder. But anyway, the Auditor General wouldn't go

down that road, but the Auditor General did agree to go and look at the

salaries, remuneration, bonuses and all that kind of stuff and that structure.

All that is suppose to be in the report, I'm told, as

well as looking into whether there's a conflict of interest existing between the

existing CEO of Nalcor owning shares in Fortis, which I have a problem with

that, too. Anyway, we'll see, that should come out soon. Hopefully, that will

help inform some of the decisions that may be made under this legislation.

One of the bigger pieces though and I'm sure the

government is looking at this, I would imagine they are, but I throw it out

there is that this is one piece, but I think the bigger piece we have to look at

is perhaps the restructuring of Nalcor. Because I think in these fiscal times –

I'm just looking at it from sort of the outside looking in here, not having

in-depth knowledge as the minister would have, perhaps, his department, his

portfolio, but we've got now, Muskrat Falls is, for all intents and purposes,

complete, pretty much done, so that's off the books. You got Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro as a subsidiary that maintains the hydro assets and so on, runs

the hydro assets. We created OilCo, took the oil and gas out of there, so I'm

not sure what's left. It seems to me like there's perhaps a lot of redundancy

and duplication and so on there and efficiencies to be found.

I wonder, given the fact that Muskrat is going to be

complete, and I guess that would fall under Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, do

we really need a Hydro plus a Nalcor plus an OilCo, plus the department? Do we

need four entities, basically, looking after these assets, or can that be

reduced down to three or two or whatever the case might be? Is there

duplication? Are there efficiencies that can be found? Because unless there's

something else I'm missing, there are other pieces to come that we're not aware

of, you've got to question whether we need all of these positions and whether we

need all this duplication. I would hope that's something the minister will be

looking at.

The other bigger piece which has been sort of

referenced by a couple of my colleagues – the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands

referenced it and I believe the Member for Labrador West – is the fact that this

is just one government entity, but we have many. I would hope that government is

going to be looking into all of the agencies, boards, commissions and so on.

One of the things I've raised in the House of Assembly

during the last sitting of the House – and I'll raise it again now because it

was mentioned – is as a Legislature, ultimately we have the responsibility to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for managing the province and managing

government and managing all the people's money. Under the structure we have with

all these agencies, boards and commissions and so on, if you look at our budget

– we're going to go into the budget process this year, as we do every year.

We're going to go into Estimates process, and I just use as one example from

last year, when you go into the Department of Health and Community Services and

you'll have the minister and his officials over here when we're in the Estimates

process, you're doing a line by line.

There are not a whole lot of lines because even though

that department has $3 billion or $4 billion, whatever it is, under it, most of

that money in the budgetary process is one line that says: transfer to health

authorities, $2 billion or $3 billion or whatever it is. So all that money, all

we're seeing is one subhead of $2 billion or $3 billion going into the health

authorities. We're not having any opportunity to see any kind of a breakdown of

how that money is being spent and be able to question how any of that money is

being spent.

The same thing with Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation. I guess there's a line, I think that's under Finance, I could be

wrong, but I think that falls under Finance. There's a line in the budget about

the NLC, but we're counting pencils, so to speak, up in the minister's office,

photocopying and all this kind of stuff: How come your photocopying costs went

up by $300 last year? But here is a line for NLC of so many million dollars – or

tens of millions of dollars or whatever it is – and we can't ask any questions

about that because we don't even know what it is, it's just like one line. The

same thing could go for Nalcor and the same thing could go for all these

agencies, boards and commissions.

I think we should have a process like we have with the

Estimates. That doesn't mean we're going to go through every ABC every year.

Perhaps we just pick two or three this year and two or three next year,

whatever. But I would like to see a process put in place where Members of the

Legislature can have a line-by-line breakdown, no different than we do for

Estimates, for these ABCs. We can question the CEOs and the people of these

ABCs; we can question those people as to how they're spending the people's money

in the same way we do everything else.

When you think about it, it is a bit of a joke in a

sense. You go through that budget process, as I say, and I'm looking at the

minister's office and I'm talking about photocopying costs. Then there is a line

here for $2 billion or $3 billion for health care authorities or school boards

or whatever. That's where all the money is at and we're not questioning any of

that. We don't have a clue how that's being spent; we're just taking it for

granted that everything is fine.

I know that we have boards in place to manage, but

those people weren't elected. None of those people were elected by the people to

manage it, we were. We are ultimately responsible when things go wrong. So I

would like to see that applied as well.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said, it's a

good start. I applaud the minister. I am sure this is only the beginning. I'm

sure a lot of the things that I am saying here – I'm sure he agrees that there

is a lot more to have to be done. We all know that. Like the Member for Humber -

Bay of Islands talked about substantive initiatives coming before this House,

that's what we need to see. We need to see substantive issues that are really

going to help to get our fiscal House in order.

I think there is a lot of money that can be found and

efficiencies that can be found through the agencies, boards and commissions and

entities like Nalcor. We've done a lot of reviews of the departments. I know

there was a review done a couple of years back where they cut a number of ADM

positions and stuff like that. You had a name on it; I forget what you called it

at the time, some review, anyway.

I think many might argue that in terms of the line

departments here in the Confederation Building, many of those departments have

kind of been cut as much as they can be cut and still operate efficiently. It

seems like there's not a whole lot of attention gone to the ABCs and to these

huge entities like Nalcor and all of its subsidiaries. I think that's where we

need to start paying more attention, so this is a start.

I just want to say, once again, that I approve this

bill 100 per cent. I agree with the premise of some of these huge bonuses and

people having to actually earn them, for sure. Again, if there are people who

are non-bargaining unit but they are support staff and so on, I wouldn't want to

see this used to all of a sudden come in and say to somebody: Hey, Joe, just as

an FYI, as of next week we're going to cut your salary by 20 per cent. I'm sure

that's not the intent. I want to say for the record it's not my intent and I

would not be supportive of doing that to people.

Certainly, as we move forward and new people are hired

in particular, salaries can be adjusted downward and we can deal with the

bonuses and stuff like that. That's fair enough. At least people, when they sign

up for a job, know what they're getting and can expect it. I'm not here for

hauling the mat out from people's feet and leaving them in financial distress

either, so we have to be fair in how we do it. I'm sure that's the minister's

intent. That's all I have to say about it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if the hon. Minister of Industry, Energy and

Technology speaks now he shall close the bill.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleagues for their commentary and comments

on this particular piece of legislation. I appreciate the support that they've

shown. I'll try my best to keep this brief and just try and maybe to respond to

a couple of the comments that were heard.

One of the things I would point out – and I'm not sure

if there's any confusion here, but I'll just try to clarify – this particular

legislation is the only legislation that will be passed on this particular

issue. The remaining work that has to be done will not need legislative action;

it can be done in the form of directives or other correspondence and action like

that. It will not require legislative action, but that will start extremely

soon.

A couple of things I would point out here. I think

there was an ATIPP review mentioned or the possibility of. There are a couple of

things. We are still in the process of implementing the Muskrat Falls inquiry

recommendations, so a lot of things that have been talked about by various

Members are ongoing. Some are complete, some are in the review stage and the

implementation stage, but there is a lot of work that's being done. There's also

an ATIPP review. That's coming soon with retired Supreme Court Chief Justice

Orsborn that's being done. I'm sure that's one of the issues that will be

considered there.

I won't get into the ABCs. That's a consideration

that's always on the mind of government, but I will stick to this. What I will

point out though, is that even when you're doing something like this, it is

contingent that we still work with the boards that we're talking about here,

that we're still working with the Crown corporations because we need to ensure

we are aligned with the progress of their projects and the work that they're

doing.

As the Member mentioned, these entities are made up of

a lot of people. We need to work together to ensure that we get these projects

completed and on track, and all the other work that goes on, on a day-to-day

basis. We will continue to have a close relationship with them and work with

them.

I heard comment about swift action. I appreciate that.

Actions are never as quick as people want it to be. But what I will say, having

been in this role and in other roles in decision-making processes, especially in

government, is that sometimes taking a little bit of time can prove to be safer

in the long run than taking that immediate action that you want to take or maybe

that the public demands.

That being said, I think we've moved fairly quickly

here, given that this raised its head back in late 2020 and the work that was

done leading up to that. There's a lot of work done behind the scenes leading up

to that. I'll throw a bouquet to my colleague, the current Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, who ran this department for some time and has

had a lot of work over the years. Certainly having been there not even close to

as long a time as she has, I have empathy for the work that she's had to put

into this process. I appreciate all the guidance that she has provided in this

process as well.

Again, when we talk about the future, what I would say

is, I'm always wiling to look at structural change, change for the betterment.

It won't be a part of this legislation, but we're always wiling to look at

things to make sure that things are being done right and for the interests of

the people of this province who we all represent.

On that note, I will take my seat again. I will

conclude my comments and wait for the Committee stage of this process.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 9 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act,

2007 (Bill 9)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole?

CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Energy

Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 9)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy

and Technology, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider Bill 9.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The

Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And

The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.” (Bill 9)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When will these legislative changes come into effect?

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm assuming that this particular piece of legislation,

hopefully, we have Committee done today, third done tomorrow and, hopefully, we

have it down to the LG's house by the end of the night.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A little overwhelmed by the speed there.

This legislation makes changes to some individuals'

employment. Will current executive employees be covered under this legislation,

or is it just for future employees?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

will be current and future.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Have employees of the corporation been made aware of these changes or proposed

changes?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

I've had numerous conversations with the boards of both entities, as well as the

executive management of the entities. I would also suggest that this has been a

conversation topic that has been in the public eye for some time. The fact is,

also, that it does not affect a certain segment, the non-bargaining units will

not be affected. We've had numerous conversations. I don't think this would be a

surprise to anyone.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

there any fear of repercussions, or loss of desired or required skill sets as a

result of this?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

I could say that's always the possibility when you make changes like that;

although, it has not been expressed to me in any specific manner, whatsoever. I

would suggest that has been one of the questions that have been asked over time,

but, right now, that's not the fear that has been brought to my attention.

I do think, overall, this is still in the best interest

moving forward. It's a step that we need to take and that we all unanimously

support.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

This legislation is going to give Cabinet the ability to make directives to

Nalcor and Hydro regarding executive compensation. Is the intention to bring

their compensation in line with Treasury Board guidelines?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

The legislation is crafted to give broad authority to be able to do a number of

things, but what would I state at this point is that we are looking at the

bonuses, per se. That has been the primary issue and, I guess, cause of

consternation. It would provide broad authority to look at a number of things,

but there's still a lot of work that has to be done, just looking at the

contracts that are there, the contractual nature here and figuring out what

we're looking at. Right now, I would suggest that we are just dealing with

bonuses.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my understanding, basically, that this new

legislation doesn't rule out bonuses, it just means that government has to

approve them. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Absolutely. This bill, what it does is it provides government with the ability

to provide direction to Nalcor and to have input on the remuneration and salary

as it relates to all employees. You could give out extremely large bonuses if

you want or no bonuses, or have a whole number of inputs on different salary

factors. Right now, this just gives government the authority to provide the

direction, with the specific intent that we've indicated here, which is that we

are going to be dealing with bonuses.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Does it give the government the authority to cancel the bonuses?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

What I would suggest is that it is dealing with current and forward facing. It

does not allow you the ability to go back in time or retroactivity. That would

not be – well, you could do that, but I think you would open yourself up to

different legal challenges than this would present.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

was thinking more of the future and the fact that if they do come forward, that

you have the ability to say no.

The other thing is there are a number of employees that

are non-bargaining – other management employees of Nalcor that are not of the

executive level but are simply management employees. Does this legislation mean

that their salaries or their negotiations would have to come through government

as well?

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

There is a significant amount of work that will have to be done. What I would

suggest is that right now our concentration is on bonuses at the executive

level. We are going to have to be doing a thorough examination here, but I

wouldn't suggest that everybody needs to worry: this is forward facing, it is

going to be sometime down the road.

able to provide direction when it comes to issues that we find are not in line

with the best interests of the province.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Chair, I thank the minister for his answers and I would say that I fully support

this legislation because when I read the first part of it – any legislation that

has somebody actually reflect the priorities of government is good legislation.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

(Inaudible) the, I guess, savings of, lets say, if we were to cancel executive

bonuses: I'm just looking at the financial benefit to the province.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

What I would suggest is that we do not have an accurate picture of what the

entirety or the cumulative amount would be. Right now, I think the bonuses range

anywhere from roughly $30-odd thousand to $315,000, that's just the range. Right

now, we still had the work to do to figure out what this looks like specifically

going forward.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

commend the minister on that and I would look forward to just have the total

amount to see what we are talking about in the long run.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Further speakers?

Shall the clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 5 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK:

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

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

bill without amendment, carried

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 9.

CHAIR:

The

motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 9.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

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

SPEAKER (Bennett):

The

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

WARR:

Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred

and have directed me to report Bill 9 without amendment.

SPEAKER:

The

Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 9 without

amendment.

When shall the report be received?

CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received. Bill ordered read a third

time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER:

The

motion is that the House do recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Mount

Pearl - Southlands, Stephenville - Port au Port, Bonavista, Terra Nova, Cape St.

Francis and Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, with leave.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I pay tribute to Mike Tobin, councillor,

community volunteer and a good guy. Mike, though born in Joe Batt's Arm, was a

proud resident of Stephenville for 44 years where he raised a family. Mike was

the consummate volunteer, giving freely of his time to many activities, but best

known for his 24 years of service on town council and his deep involvement with

the Knights of Columbus on all levels.

Mike's passion and dedication for the Knights of

Columbus was well known within the region and the province. He served in various

positions with Our Lady of Perpetual Help Council, reaching the highest honour

of grand knight. He was district deputy and served on the provincial council,

serving as state program director.

Mike's service to his community was highlighted by his

24 years on town council. In this capacity, Mike's endless work ethic helped see

the town through floods, the downsizing of the town's airport and the building

of significant infrastructure such as the hospital, pool and arena. Mike's

contribution was immeasurable and was recognized by Municipalities Newfoundland

and Labrador on several occasions for his years of service.

Mike was a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian and

will be missed by many throughout the province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The City of Mount Pearl has long been known for its

amazing community spirit, its top-notch service delivery and well-maintained

infrastructure. This did not just happen; it was arrived at through the vision

and determination of amazing community builders.

When thinking of community builders in Mount Pearl, the

first name that comes to mind is the late Neil Windsor. Neil became town

engineer in 1972 and played an instrumental role in building our community,

including construction of Smallwood Arena and the Park Avenue swimming pool. He

became MHA for Mount Pearl South in 1975 and played a significant role in Mount

Pearl achieving city status. He was one of the founders of the Mount Pearl Minor

Hockey Association as well as the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival.

He's also credited for securing Mount Pearl's largest

economic driver, Donovans Business Park for the city. On Sunday, March 28 at the

age of 75 years, the hon. H. Neil Windsor passed peacefully away with his loving

wife, Anne, by his side. This larger-than-life individual will forever be

remembered and respected by the people of Mount Pearl for his significant

contribution to our community.

May he rest in peace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow in King's Cove, a dedicated community leader

will be laid to rest. Hayward Dobbin came to King's Cove as a teacher and

quickly became very involved in community service. He started the King's Cove

and area volunteer fire department and served as its first chief.

He was the founding grand knight of Msgr. William

Williams King's Cove Knights of Columbus Council and later became the district

deputy. Up until the time of his passing, he continued to serve as grand knight.

He served many years on the health care board of Golden

Heights Manor, the Bonavista hospital and the peninsula's health care board. For

40-plus years, he was an elected Member of the King's Cove town council and was

their deputy mayor at the time of his passing. In addition, he was also a member

of the local area ground search and rescue.

During his educational career, he was principal for St.

Aidan's Elementary in Plate Cove East, St. Mark's School in King's Cove and also

served on the local branch of the NLTA and the King's Cove Historical Society.

I ask for the House's recognition of an outstanding

community volunteer, Mr. Hayward Dobbin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to speak on a 50-plus group

in the District of Terra Nova that has gone over and above during COVID. The New

Horizons Random Fifty-Plus Club of Hillview has 137 active and engaged members

from 13 communities, ranging from Shoal Harbour to Southport. They have had to

cancel many meetings, gatherings and meals, but they have remained active,

committed and engaged to their members and the communities.

This group has completed many projects since COVID came

upon us, completing and delivering kits containing surgical masks, rubber

gloves, disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizers and food hampers. In May 2020, 140

kits were delivered; 91 to seniors who live alone in the Southwest Arm area,

with small food baskets. On July 23, 2020, they provided an additional 140

seniors with essential kits. In December 2020, a total of 158 seniors received

packages containing PPE and small grocery hampers. In March 2021, an additional

166 seniors were contacted. A total of 464 kits were completed and delivered.

This act of kindness deserves congratulations and a

huge thank you to the New Horizons Random Fifty-Plus Club in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

WALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I recognize a constituent who is well known to

this House of Assembly and a friend to all. I speak of Kevin Parsons of

Flatrock.

Kevin served as mayor of his hometown for three years

prior to being elected as MHA for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, a

position that he held for over 12 years. A great constituency person, Kevin was

active throughout each town at many events, worked tirelessly to address the

needs of the residents and worked collaboratively with the five town councils to

ensure that all municipal needs were met.

Always there to lend a hand, helping to renovate a

constituent's home, filling in potholes, selling tickets at the Regatta or

delivering a meal of fish to a senior, Kevin has never shied away from the work

that had to be done. Having a soft spot in his heart for seniors, Kevin went

above and beyond to assist those who needed his help, oftentimes sitting at

their kitchen tables helping them with forms that had to be completed.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking Kevin

Parsons for his service and dedication to the people of the beautiful District

of Cape St. Francis.

Happy retirement, my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, with leave?

DEMPSTER:

With leave, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

SPEAKER:

Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I once read “It's not what you take when you leave this

world behind. It's what you leave behind when you go.”

I pay tribute to the life of a dear friend and fellow

Labradorian who left much behind, in how he loved, lived and gave back.

Born and raised in Mary's Harbour, Keith made his home

with his wife and two children in Lodge Bay. A community leader, volunteer

firefighter and long-time mayor, Keith was a fierce advocate for Labrador.

Keith's career with the Labrador Fishermen's Union

Shrimp Company spanned more than three decades. He took tremendous pride, both

in his work and the company that he was a part of. His ability to care for boat

trawls was impeccable.

Keith was a master navigator, a skilled hunter and the

happiest moments of his life were spent doing the things he loved with the

people he loved.

He was a true son of Labrador, proud of his homeland

and the communities he served. His untimely passing on February 7 impacted many

lives.

With deepest respect for his family, I ask all hon.

Members to join me in reflecting on the life of Keith Thomas Rumbolt, a man who

meant so much to so many.

Wishing you fair winds and tide, my friend, as the

sailor heads home after a lifetime on the sea.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, today I am happy to highlight some of the recent success in the mining

sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite challenging times due to COVID-19,

our mining sector continues to produce impressive results.

In fact, mineral exploration activity for 2020 in

Newfoundland and Labrador was the highest it has been over the past five years

with 389 mineral exploration applications processed.

The price of gold remained high throughout the pandemic

and Newfoundland and Labrador's strong gold potential, with projects that are

either operating, under environmental assessment or in active exploration,

coupled with some world-class deposits have been the main drivers of this year's

thriving exploration activity.

This has driven positive results for the 2020 Fraser

Institute's Annual Survey of Mining Companies, which shows our province rising

to third nationally and eighth globally in overall Investment Attractiveness. We

also have competitive regulatory and policy structures that rank our province

first in Canada and eighth globally and for Policy Perception.

Mr. Speaker, we provide publicly funded and available

research undertaken by the Geological Survey of Newfoundland and Labrador that

offers baseline geological information, helping to support exploration efforts

and offer our Junior Exploration Assistance Program, which enhances

Newfoundlander and Labrador's competitiveness through advancing mineral

discoveries and exploration.

Mining, mineral exploration and quarrying are important

industries and offer incredible future potential for this province. Almost $4

billion in mineral shipments, $82.6 million in exploration expenditures, and

employment of about 7,700 person years are projected for this year.

The province's mineral industry continues to be a key

economic driver for our province and a focus for investment attraction efforts.

These exploration companies and mine operators are located in rural areas of our

province, create opportunities for local businesses, and increase the ability to

invest in programs, infrastructure, education and health care.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. I join with the minister in expressing my support for the mining

industry in this province. The publicly available research included in the

Geological Survey and the Junior Exploration Assistance Program are key supports

in the province for establishing new mining developments; however, I do believe

that more needs to be done to support the industry.

Our Mineral Act

and Mining Act are both in need of

review and legislative updates. The royalty and taxation regimes should also be

reviewed to ensure that we are competitive and attractive to companies who want

to invest in our new mining developments.

Mining is an international industry and mining

companies will make investment decisions based on how our province compares to

other jurisdictions. We have quality mineral deposits in this province, but we

must make sure we have an attractive development regime.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. The people of my constituency have built their entire lives around

the mining industry and I'm excited to hear the minister speak so adamantly

about the future of mining. I look forward to working with the minister to help

ensure the continued growth of existing mining operations in Labrador West and

elsewhere in this province, and hope the government will continue to work with

us to incentivize this industry to provide us with new and exciting

opportunities as global markets continue to shift.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and

Recreation.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in this hon. House, I would like to congratulate

the 2021 winner of the BMO Winterset Award, Eva Crocker. Ms. Crocker has won the

award for her book All I Ask .

All

I Ask

was one of 23 works by Newfoundland and Labrador authors submitted by publishers

countrywide. The story is a bold and bracing exploration of what it is like to

be young in a time when everything and nothing seems possible.

Mr. Speaker, the BMO Winterset Award celebrates

excellence in Newfoundland and Labrador writing.

The award honours the memory of Sandra Fraser Gwyn – a

St. John's-born social historian and prize-winning author who passionately

promoted a national awareness of the province's arts.

Her husband, journalist and fellow author, Richard

Gwyn, OC, established the award in 2000 and named it after the historic house

Sandra grew up in on Winter Avenue in St. John's.

Considered one of Atlantic Canada's richest literary

prizes, the annual award is $12,500, while each of the finalist receives $3,000.

The other two finalists for this year's award are

Bridget Canning for Some People's Children

and Andrea Procter for A Long Journey:

Residential Schools in Labrador and Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. Members in the House to

join me in congratulating Eva Crocker on winning the BMO Winterset Award, as

well as the finalists, Bridget Canning and Andrea Procter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy

of his statement. The Official Opposition joins the government in congratulating

Ms. Eva Crocker on being the recipient of the BMO Winterset Award for 2020 for

her book, All I Ask .

It is great to see that 23 works by Newfoundland and

Labrador authors were submitted to publishers across the country. It goes to

show that our unique culture and sense of history can be promoted nationwide and

be successful. As time goes on, it remains important to continue our traditions

by telling our stories. We must find more ways as a government to ensure that

our tradition and culture lives on. We must continue to acknowledge the authors

that have had success previously to this year as well.

The excellence in our arts community is quite evident

in the District of Bonavista and across the province. It's great to see our arts

community get the recognition that it deserves.

Congratulations once again to Ms. Crocker and to all

the entrants into the 2020 BMO Winterset contest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I'm happy to see these talented authors recognized and rewarded for

their hard work. Across the three finalists work, the lives and struggles of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are explored, be they Indigenous or settler,

LGBTQ, urban or rural. The culture and identity of our province is always

changing and these authors do us a great service by chronicling it.

Congratulations to Eva, Bridget and Andrea for their

fine work. Hopefully, we'll continue to see the great works of other authors in

this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak today to recognize the historic

number of women and gender-diverse individuals who put their names forward

during the 2021 provincial general election. While we would've liked to have

seen more elected than the nine who were successful, having a larger, more

diverse group run for office is a positive step toward having a Legislature that

is representative of the people we serve.

Research tells us that much of the work to ensuring

diversity in our candidates rests with political parties. However, we know there

are steps government can take to facilitate diversity.

Our government led the way to amend the

Standing Orders of the House of

Assembly to allow infants on the floor of this hon. Chamber, we have implemented

a Legislature-Specific Harassment Free Workplace Policy and we have introduced a

bill to amend the Elections Act, 1991 .

As well, the Office of Women and Gender Equality is

working with the local

chapter of Equal Voice on two exciting projects. A

virtual campaign college will be offered next month and this fall we will be

holding the second Daughters of the Vote for young women and gender-diverse

individuals.

Mr. Speaker, today, I reiterate government's commitment

to diversity in all sectors and to ensuring inclusion is a fundamental

characteristic of our beautiful province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. I congratulate all of the individuals who put themselves forward for

election during this most challenging recent campaign, and I extend a special

congratulations to our women and gender-diverse candidates. Their voices surely

enhanced our policy discussions and I sincerely hope to see them continue to

participate in public debate.

As only nine women were elected, I pledge to do my part

to support all women's groups in their efforts to recruit and support candidates

in the future. With municipal elections on the horizon, we are given a unique

opportunity to support women and gender-diverse candidates. I challenge all

Members of the House to reach out to women and gender-diverse candidates and

encourage them to run for public office in their areas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for advance copy of her

statement. I have been privileged myself to be part of organizations embracing

diversity and join her in recognizing the historic number of women and

gender-diverse individuals who ran in the recent election.

This and the

Standing Orders allowing infants on the floor of the House of Assembly are

important first steps, but we need more tangible measures to address inequality,

Mr. Speaker. Fixed election dates, better funding mechanisms, a $15 minimum wage

now, benefits, paid sick leave: those are the true measures of equality and

levelling the playing field.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier said that electricity rates must

be settled before entering into discussions on the Atlantic Loop; however, it is

clear from our regional minister that the Atlantic Loop discussions are ongoing.

Can the Premier explain why the issue of rate

mitigation has not been concluded?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that question.

The two topics are not mutually exclusive. What I did

say was we need to solve Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill Projects prior to

entering into a full partnership in the Atlantic Loop. That doesn't mean that

discussions can't be ongoing in parallel, Mr. Speaker. They're not mutually

exclusive, although, for us, the first step is solving the Lower Churchill

Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Mr.

Speaker, while they're not mutually one in the same, there is a big need now to

move forward with Muskrat Falls, particularly around rate mitigation. It needs

to move as quickly as possible.

In April 2019, the premier of the day said that

electricity rates would be 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Yesterday, the Premier

said there's a difficult path forward without the federal government, and the

minister hid behind the PUB.

Is the Liberal government walking away from their

commitment of 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we wouldn't be in this situation if it

weren't for the mismanagement by the Members opposite with respect to the Lower

Churchill Project. It's terrible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

We've been tasked with cleaning up and we will; however, with respect to the

specific electricity rates, it was promised to be approximately 13.5 cents at

commission. We're still heading towards commission. After that, the PUB sets

electricity rates. We've been tasked with – and will – mitigate those rates,

despite the irresponsible decisions by the government at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier continuously talks about collaboration and

talking about looking forward, not backward. In this case, the Premier continues

to bring out things from the past. You have a job to do. Please do it. Move

forward for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

BRAZIL:

Now

that the election is over, the Liberals are backpedalling on 13.5 cents for

power rates. While the PUB does set electricity rates, government has ways to

offset rates.

I ask the Premier: Please be open with the people of

the province, what is the electricity rate you are targeting?

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we're not backpedalling. We wish we could

backpedal on the whole Lower Churchill Project, but we can't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

We've been tasked with trying to keep rates affordable and we will. That

involves renegotiating the fiscal framework of the Muskrat Falls deal with the

federal government, which we are doing in earnest, to come up with gross sums of

money to offset the cost of this project so it's not borne by the ratepayers of

this project, so that they can create sustainable opportunities for the future

of this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that one of his target things

around stimulating the economy is around the Atlantic Loop. The key asset for

the Atlantic Loop is Muskrat Falls, the asset of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. If you're going