PDF Version

December 7, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 55

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

believe I see Mayor Churence Rogers in the public gallery. We welcome him to the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We also have Hayward Shute,

who's the subject of a Member's statement today, in the public gallery.

Welcome.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Harbour Grace Port de Grave, Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's Humber, St. John's

Centre and Baie Verte Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

recognize Mr. Hayward Shute of Harbour Grace. Mr. Shute was born in 1938 and

from a young age he has been, and continues to be, a dedicated volunteer in our

historic community.

Hayward

truly demonstrates the example that we do not live by what we get, but rather we

live by what we give. He is an active member of the Masonic Lodge, Harbour

Grace, where is chaplain and a past master.

Mr.

Shute is also a vital member of St. Paul's Anglican Church where he is a vestry

member, a minister's warden and a prominent volunteer for the annual moose

sausage breakfasts, turkey dinners and fish and brewis fundraisers.

He has

taught many young people how to skate as a member of the Conception Bay North

Figure Skating Club. He was also an energetic hockey player in his youth and is

now a dedicated Cee Bee's fan, of course, showing support in many town

activities.

Hayward

was one of the last citizens to sail on the

SS Kyle before it found its final

resting place at the head of Harbour Grace. On November 5, he and his wife Joan

celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Please

join me in congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the 70th anniversary of incorporation of

the Town of Belleoram. Today, we pay tribute to all those who have served as

mayors and councillors and all those who have served the town since their

incorporation in 1946.

Beautiful, scenic Belleoram is a town of many dedicated volunteers who give

their time and effort to enhance the quality of life in Belleoram. As your

Member of the House of Assembly during the last nine years, I have personally

witnessed the strong commitment your town has made to improving infrastructure

and the programs and services that you offer your residents.

I have

every confidence that all of you who serve your town will continue to do so with

steadfast commitment to improve the lives of your residents and ensure the

sustainability of your community. This town is rich in so many ways; your

amazing musical talent, gorgeous scenery, historic sites, famous Iron Skull

Festival and warm, friendly people, which always makes Belleoram one of my most

favourite places to visit.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Town of Belleoram as

they celebrate this momentous milestone.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on November 29 I had the pleasure of attending the Duke of Edinburgh's

International Award ceremony at the Capital Hotel.

One of

the most prestigious awards Canada offers to our young people is the Duke of

Edinburgh's International Award. Established in Canada in 1963, the tri-level

non-competitive program encourages youth to set and achieve goals in the areas

of community service, skills, fitness and adventure.

Today, I

stand to recognize six young people from my district who received gold pins and

bronze and silver certificates from the Hon. Frank F. Fagan, Lieutenant

Governor. Congratulations to Luke Kennedy, Kendra Bishop, Evan O'Reilly, Shawn

Baker, Ryan Jones and James Keats. These students are part of COSTA, Challenging

Our Students to Achieve, an initiative to support the participation of youth

with cognitive and physical disabilities in the awards program.

November 28, Emily Lush, another resident from my district

Rabbitown Community Centre received the bronze award for achievers from

the Engage, Achieve, Succeed Project which involved participants from our local

community centres and Waypoints. Congratulations Emily.

Mr.

Speaker, these individuals have worked extremely hard in attaining their awards.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating them on their

achievements.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, recently I had

an opportunity to visit the Western Newfoundland Brewing Company in Pasadena and

tour their facilities. They are the latest producers of craft beer in the

province and the first for the West Coast.

The idea

of starting a brewery originated nearly 40 years ago for Norm MacDonald, who is

one of the three partners in the company. Over time, it became a retirement

project. The other two partners in the company are his son Jim MacDonald and

Jennifer Galliott.

The

company is true to their roots and plan to keep their products connected to the

West Coast of the Island. They have named their flagship beer after Killdevil

Mountain in Gros Morne National Park. This Christmas, Killdevil Pale Ale and

Wild Cove Cream Ale will be available on tap in several locations around the

West Coast and the company plans to offer canned beer at a later date.

I ask

all Members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Western

Newfoundland Brewing Company on bringing their beer to market and wishing them

well in their future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Winnifred (Freddie) Walsh owns a corner store in St. John's Centre. The store

has been in the family for 66 years. Freddie works 14 hours a day, seven days a

week, much like her mother, Marion Walsh, did before her.

Like

many small-business owners, Freddie works hard but this is not why she is

outstanding. Young and old, everyone talks to generous, non-judgemental Freddie.

She even keeps a stool near the cash so that children and perch and speak to her

at eye level.

This

store is the heart of our community. Freddie says she loves meeting the people

who come through her door and helps them however she can.

She has

a dog-eared notebook kept near the cash that holds long lists of handwritten

numbers. These numbers represent a record of all the items that her customers

need and have taken with the promise to pay for at a later date.

Times

are tough for many of her clients and she never charges interest. Freddie says

that almost without fail, her customers honour their small loans. Today let me

repeat what Freddie must hear so often: What would we do without you?

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Freddie for her years of

community service and generosity.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Josephine Pearl McKay was born on April 11, 1916, at Jerry's Harbour, Green Bay,

to John and Rocella Short. She was one of nine children. When she was 16 years

old she moved to Little Bay Islands to work with Strongs Ltd. She recalls how

hard she worked for $6 a month, but will quickly say: That bought me everything

I needed.

In 1934

she married Llewelyn McKay; they had nine children. Her husband had to leave the

island for work, leaving her to raise her family on her own for the most part.

Her

children will tell you how good care she took of them; she was very kind to the

people in the community that had less than her. She attributes her good health

to hard work and exercise, of which dancing was one of her favourites. She loved

to dance.

Josephine celebrated her 100th birthday on April 11 at the Springdale Retirement

Centre, where she now resides in fairly good health. Josephine is the oldest

resident not only of the retirement centre, but is the oldest resident of

Springdale, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

all Members to join me in celebrating this significant milestone with Mrs.

Josephine McKay.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise in this hon. House today to recognize the work of the Gathering

Place, and in particular, the work of their parish nurses. These are volunteer

registered nurses helping to meet the needs of those accessing health care

services from the new Downtown Health Care Collaborative clinic, an

interdisciplinary health care team located at the Gathering Place in St. John's.

These

dedicated volunteers and staff provide essential primary health care services

for people in vulnerable circumstances. They cultivate the type of environment

where independence, self-respect and dignity are fostered.

I had

the pleasure of visiting the Gathering Place recently and seeing first-hand how

this partnership is helping individuals at risk. Many are homeless, in

less-than-desirable housing situations, unemployed, struggling with mental

health issues or struggling with addictions.

Mr.

Speaker, the depth of professionalism and compassion shown by the staff and

volunteers at the Gathering Place is outstanding, and I commend their good work.

Mr.

Speaker, when citizens have good mental and good physical health they are able

to contribute to every aspect of community life. That's why our government is

supporting such community agencies as the Gathering Place, expanding primary

health care teams throughout the province and adopting a health-in-all-policies

approach to governance and government.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And for

the third time, I think, in several weeks I'm going to stand up and say nice

AN HON. MEMBER:

It's the Christmas season.

MR. KENT:

It's the Christmas season,

yes.

I thank

the minister for the copy of his statement today. We join with government in

recognizing the great work of the Gathering Place. I, too, would like to say a

special thank you to the health care professionals who are providing an

invaluable service to vulnerable persons accessing care at the Downtown Health

Care Collaborative clinic.

I'm also

really excited to hear the minister talking about health in all policies. That's

an approach I started talking about in 2014. There was real work done on that

concept in the Department of Health and Community Services in the last couple of

years.

In 2015,

I was pleased to launch the Primary Health Care Framework. I commend the

minister for following through. His plans to carry out the work that's outlined

in the framework are admirable. We congratulate the Gathering Place on their

great work and let's keep going.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I, too, congratulate the

Gathering Place which, in such a short time, has been able to expand its

services to vulnerable people in our community. I commend, as well, the

volunteer parish nurses working with the Downtown Health Care Collaborative

clinic for stepping in to provide much-needed health care to individuals at the

Gathering Place.

I'm not

downplaying it, but I also would like to see that such needed services as this

were a full part of our community health care system with fully paid nurses,

ensuring long-term stability and volunteers backing that up.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise today in this hon. House to recognize December 1 to 7 as National Safe

Driving Week. This year's theme Icy and

Dicey: Avoid Unnecessary Risks is especially appropriate as we head into

the winter driving season.

Mr.

Speaker, in recent weeks, I have been honoured to recognize the National Day of

Remembrance for Road Crash Victims and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Project

Red Ribbon campaign.

Today, I

continue this safety theme by asking all motorists to learn how they can adopt

safer, more defensive driving habits to reduce the risks associated with winter

driving. This includes ensuring our vehicles are equipped with good winter tires

and that they are well maintained to operate properly in Newfoundland and

Labrador's challenging weather conditions. Residents should also adjust driving

habits to allow for increased stopping distances and yield the right-of-way to

snowplows, so they can do their job effectively. Just as importantly, I

encourage all residents to always wear a seatbelt.

Mr.

Speaker, National Safe Driving Week allows me an opportunity to renew our

government's commitment to eliminate distractions behind the wheel and to speak

out against driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs or fatigue.

As we

move into the new year, I urge all hon. Members to join me in promoting road

safety awareness in our province and in reminding all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians of the shared responsibility for keeping our roads safe this

winter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we,

too, in the Official Opposition office would like to acknowledge December 1 to 7

as National Safe Driving Week. Keeping our roads safe in order to avoid risks

and collisions is a responsibility for all road users.

winter is upon us, I remind all road users to adjust their driving habits for

winter, to always drive with winter conditions in mind, to ensure that their

vehicle is winter-ready and be mindful not to drive while under the influence of

drugs, alcohol or fatigue.

Mr.

Speaker, to me it seems ironic that while this year's theme of national safety

week is Icy and Dicey, the Liberal government has decided to eliminate 24-hour

snow clearing.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Public education on

safe driving practices is good, but I'd like to see more real action from

government, such as the mandatory use of winter tires, which I encourage the

minister to seriously consider.

I also

urge government to reverse their 2016 budget cuts to 24-hour snow clearing on

the Trans-Canada Highway. The $1.9 million saved puts people forced to drive at

night at risk.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

heard from countless people who are suffering under the revised home care model

introduced in Budget 2016 . These are

individuals who can no longer receive adequate support in order to remain in

their own homes.

I ask

the minister: How is forcing people into personal care homes or long-term care

facilities going to save any money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

With

regard to home support hours, the only change that was made in the budget was

not to clinical hours of need; it was simply around what one would call domestic

arrangements in terms of home cleaning and meal preparation. That is capped at

two hours per day or 14 hours a week and is consistent with other jurisdictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

But therein lies the problem,

Mr. Speaker. Those domestic hours were in fact, in many cases, being used for

legitimate, necessary home care that's necessary to keep people in their homes

The

Liberal government has said on numerous occasions that it will put people's

health before the cost.

I ask

the minister: How can he support cuts to home care hours when we know those

hours were used to provide critical services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

On a

policy perspective, we are actually reviewing, currently, the entire home

support program, in light of a review commissioned by the previous government.

We have an implementation team in place.

With

regard to the issue of specific hours, I accept that there were coding

inaccuracies when these data were entered. Everyone on home support has an

annual review. These new standards and new methods of coding are designed to

reflect clinical need of the individuals at the time, and those hours are

accurate and open to appeal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the minister is following through on the home care review, but I urge him to

look at the clinical needs of some of the clients that are being affected by

decisions in Budget 2016 .

For

instance, a 96-year-old resident of Conception Bay South was receiving 35 hours

a week home care, while at the same time availed of an extra two hours a day

covered by private insurance. Unfortunately, that insurance coverage lapsed for

four months. The department, instead of agreeing to cover the extra hours,

recommended that she be placed in long-term care.

How does

the minister justify such a ridiculous decision?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

are several responses to that. If the Member opposite has particular details of

a constituent, I would be delighted to entertain that discussion. This isn't the

place to discuss those private issues.

I think

the other comment I would make on the basis of hours is that with time, we know

that clients' hours increase. The primary aim is the safety and health of the

individual. There comes a time when home care is no longer the best place for an

individual and long-term care or personal care becomes the wiser and healthier

option for that individual. Without the specifics, I can't comment any further,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I fully appreciate that the

minister can't comment on specific cases, but there are dozens and dozens of

cases that we have followed up on with staff at Health and Community Services

and because of decisions made in Budget

2016 we're making no progress.

89-year-old lady from Petty Harbour living at home, receiving 35 hours home care

a week is being told that rather than giving her an extra additional couple of

hours a day, she will instead have to be placed in a long-term care bed at a

cost in excess of $10,000 a month.

Will the

minister consider adjusting the maximum allowable hours when it can permit a

senior to remain in their own home while saving significant public funds?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

pointed out, there is a review of the entire program underway. These factors

have been highlighted. But again, at some point, these are decisions that are

made by practising community-based clinicians based on the needs of the

individual and what is best for their health and safety.

There

comes a time when that can be best met by placing the individual in either a

personal care home or a long-term care home. And without the specifics, it is

impossible to comment any further, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, this is not

about assessments and coding inaccuracies, this is about people's lives. We're

talking about meeting the needs of some of our most vulnerable people.

During

the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to establish a diabetes

prevention and management strategy with a diabetes database.

What is

the Liberal government doing towards a provincial diabetes strategy as promised

and what is the state of the provincial diabetes registry that has been nearly

finished for some time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I have

several answers. We have re-enrolled in the Chronic Disease Self-Management

Program for another three years. Thirty-five per cent of the people in that

program self-identify as being diabetic.

With

regard to the specific issue about converting a database into a registry, the

gentleman opposite is well aware that it is mandated. To do that, you need a

privacy impact assessment. That is done by NLCHI and was received in the

department today.

The

difference between a registry and a database is like a telephone. A registry is

a two-way system; we can call out to diabetes once we've identified them. A

database is simply like a telephone that receives data coming in. We're going to

put that in place, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the regulatory requirements are

fulfilled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Two specific follow-up

questions, Mr. Speaker.

During

the election campaign the Liberals committed to a specific diabetes prevention

and management strategy. The former Health critic and now Minister of Justice

would recall the health forum we both attended where that commitment was made.

When will that happen?

Secondly, in terms of the diabetes registry, it was just about completed. That

was a year ago. When can we expect information from this diabetes registry to

actually be publicly available?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Until

the privacy impact assessment has been completed, the legislation under the

Personal Health Information Act

actually prohibits any further manipulation of the information within a database

to use it as a registry. As soon as that process has been completed, the

registry can begin its work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A new

report released today by the Canadian Diabetes Association estimates that there

are 179,000 Newfoundland and Labrador residents or 35 per cent of the population

now living with diabetes or pre-diabetes. This is the highest rate by far in

Canada, costing the provincial health care system an estimated $54 million.

What

specific progress has been made on the diabetes strategy that was promised last

year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

With

reference to that question, I would refer back to my previous answers. We have

the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. We have the registry, as soon as

regulatory requirements are in place. In addition to that,

The Way Forward document clearly references a strategy between now

and 2025 to significantly address and reduce risk factors for diabetes, and

that's out there too. I think taken together, that exists in the form of a

strategy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Continuing with our Chronic

Disease Self-Management Program is great. I'm pleased to hear that, but it's not

new and it's not what was promised during the last provincial election campaign.

Moving

on to a related topic: Why did the government cut funding for test strips

despite expert advice, and will they increase the current limits to support

people in Newfoundland and Labrador who can't afford to buy these strips in

order to self-manage their diabetes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

changes in test strips were based on national guidelines from the Canadian

Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and are consistent with other

jurisdictions.

It's

interesting the Member references the changes. Ontario also engaged in changes

to line up with CADTH and they have had a little longer experience than us. They

have a report that shows there has been no deleterious effect on outcomes in

patients with diabetes who use the new test strip numbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

It's unfortunate that the

minister continues to point to outdated CADTH guidelines when there's more

current data available on what's happening in the rest of Canada.

There

have been complaints by people with diabetes to their pharmacists, their

physicians and the Canadian Diabetes Association that these new limits do not

meet their needs.

Will the

minister reveal today how many people who use the government program to get

diabetes test strips have had to go through the special authorization process

already because these new limits are not enough to help manage their diabetes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I can certainly get that

information for the Member opposite. I don't have it at hand but would be happy

to table it at a mutually convenient moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I appreciate the minister's

response and I look forward to receiving that information.

The

federal Liberals will be slashing the provincial health transfers and the

Premier, on this issue, has been silent, all while other provincial leaders have

spoken out strongly against the proposed move.

Is our

Premier prepared to find his voice and speak up at the upcoming First Ministers'

Meeting this week?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

who has been speaking out on behalf of all Canadian premiers would be the

premier now the Yukon, the newly elected premier in the Yukon. As you know,

there's an FMM with the First Ministers, which will include the prime minister

at this meeting. It's been this prime minister who is indeed meeting with the

premiers.

So I

understand that Members opposite are not used to meeting with the prime

minister, but indeed that meeting will exist. I can assure you that the voice of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be heard at the table, when we have a

round-table discussion on health. It's important that we all recognize that the

former administration had accepted I guess, because we didn't hear their voices

too loud on what would be the new threshold that was established quite some time

ago.

And on

behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador, I can assure you that our voice will be

heard at that table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I, too, congratulate the new

Yukon premier on his election, wish him well and hopefully our Premier will

follow suite and speak up for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

And maybe it will be covered

on his Sunday night calls with the federal minister. We'll see.

The new

proposed funding model will impact this province more than any other, based on

our demographics. How much money does Newfoundland and Labrador stand to lose

due to cuts to health transfers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I've had

this conversation on several occasions with the federal minister of Health and

pointed out that we've already suffered as a result of the change from waited

capitation to straight per capita disbursement of the health accord money. We've

lost $15.5 million on that. In addition, the reduction of the escalator from 6

to 3 per cent proposed in 2017 will have a further reduction of a similar

magnitude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I'm sure the minister would

agree with me that that kind of impact on our province is completely

unacceptable.

So does

the minister believe that a 3 per cent escalator is reasonable and justified

based on the ever-increasing cost of health care?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Rather

than stipulate how the money flows, my argument with the federal minister has

been about the actual percentage. Traditionally when Medicare first came out, 50

cents on every provincial dollar spent on health care came from the federal

government. Over the years that has fallen successively and currently lies

between 17 and 18 per cent for this province. It varies by province.

Our aim,

my personal aim, and with the discussions with the Premier has been to try and

restore that to 25 cents as a baseline, as a starting point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Pleased to hear that, and

pleased to support the minister in that effort.

Many

provinces thought it was downright appalling to have the federal minister

insinuate that provinces were not spending health transfer funding on health

care.

Do you

condone such arrogance? Did you assure her that Newfoundland and Labrador does

in fact spend its transfers appropriately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

say that my conversation with Dr. Philpott was frank and totally engaged. I

think she left the room in absolutely no doubt where I stood on that matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

On December 1 the minister

stated that: The Children and Youth Care

and Protection Act prevents me from identifying individual children for

their own protection and privacy.

Can the

minister point us to the part of the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act which states that she cannot

share broad provincial statistics from her department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker,

that particular day that I was asked that question we have to remember that are

people are home, there are family members and friends of the individuals who are

deceased. I wanted to be accurate and sure that I could reveal such numbers in

the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

As I'm sure the minister is

aware, sections 52, 56 and 72 of the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act all deal with disclosure of

information. All refer specifically to disclosures that would identify an

individual. What I'm looking for, Minister, is provincial statistics.

Again I

ask: How many children and youth are in out-of-province placements today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I stand here

with all the stats that are on the website and, as you can tell, there are

numerous stats on our website. The protective intervention number of children,

protective intervention number of families, kinship, youth services, in-care

custody, provincial total: 980; Innu, Inuit, other Aboriginal, foster homes,

group homes, individual living arrangements, out-of-province placements,

provincial total: 30, Mr. Speaker.

The

stats are here if you'd like for me to table them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Nice to see that she has the

information now, Mr. Speaker, and is sharing it with the House.

I ask

the minister: How many children or youth have died or have suffered serious

injury while in care or receiving services from government in the past 12

months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Eight, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gary

Noftle, the executive director of the Buchans Boys and Girls Club, said that the

Premier's statement that there have been no cuts to core funding just blew him

away.

I ask

the Premier: Is Mr. Noftle, a 40-year veteran of the Boys and Girls Club, wrong

in his assertion that you have cut his group's core funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

would know and I'm sure the Member opposite knows because he has quite a bit

of experience on this very issue. As a matter of fact, this was a decision that

was made in terms of core funding versus non-core funding. So this is really the

fundamental thing that's at question here as the previous minister would know.

Core

funding versus non-core funding the

definitions were established, Mr. Speaker,

not at all by this particular administration. The core funding versus non-core

funding was established by the previous administration and we had used the very

same definition.

There

have also been some questions around grants, if there was notification, Mr.

Speaker. Notification was sent out in May of last year notifying the various

groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs that they could not depend on the same

level of funding as last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

You know, I beg to differ

with the Premier. The assertion here was that this was core funding. It has been

for 30 years is the understanding by all of these organizations.

In May,

the Minister of Transportation and Works assured the James Hornell Boys and

Girls Club in Buchans that a cut to their funding would not happen. Six months

later, we learn that the Buchans Boys and Girls Club funding has been reduced.

I ask

the Premier: What changed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only

obvious thing that has changed there is the mind of the previous minister. They

would know that the Boys and Girls Clubs that they're just referring to right

now, by their own definition last year by their own definition, their own

budget analysis that was non-core funding.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the only thing that has changed there is the position of the previous

minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I have to clarify, again, the

assertion always was this was core funding purely core funding. Every

organization understood that; our administration understood that. I, for 30

years in the volunteer sector, understood it as being that.

The club

applied for $37,440 to cover core expenses such as heat and lights, salaries and

programing, but had their funding slashed by over $10,000.

Would

you not agree things such as heat, lights, salaries and programing is indeed

core funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the person sitting next to the Member opposite would clearly know what was

identified and defined as core versus non-core funding, because it was a

definition by that former minister that actually put those

definitions in place.

So the assertion here of being what is core versus non-core, and added to the

group that would be considered when they put in that project-based funding; Mr.

Speaker, that definition was determined and put in place by the previous

administration.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, we've seen lots of examples where we've seen applications that people

have been asked to change and so on. We use a very defined, very stringent set

of guidelines so that we can support new groups like the YMCA, like the

Association for New Canadians, like the kids' helpline. So we've been able to

help a great number of associations provide services to our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

organizations we're referring to here were ones that were always treated as core

funding, not project funding. That's totally separate. That's already

documented, been there. My 30 years of experience knows that. These

organizations with 40 years have already attested to that.

The

executive director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of St. John's said their cuts

came with no notice. This puts them in a deficit this year and it's an

impossible position to make up these services this year.

What

would you suggest, Mr. Premier, the community groups do? Simply close their

doors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

funding that was for the Boys and Girls Clubs as you know, if you look at the

various budgets of those clubs, they're a very small amount. Mr. Speaker, we

realize this is an impact. They provide a great service to many organizations

around our province and we value the work they do.

But

there were 30-odd associations and groups last year that the prior

administration said no to, Mr. Speaker. That is the same number that was said no

to this year. By their own definition, they were the group that defined the Boys

and Girls Clubs as non-core funding organizations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The Boys and Girls Clubs,

along with about 20 organizations that you've cut funding through right now,

were considered core funding. Some other groups we couldn't fund at the time

were special project funding. Unfortunately, the money wasn't there for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

At this point, the core

funding was imperative for the operations of these organizations. The cuts to

grants to youth organizations will have a devastating impact on the communities,

along with its youth and families.

Who do

you expect to fill the gaps in services and programs left by the government

cuts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

imagine that the Member opposite would sit through a government that actually

made those decisions and today is not aware of the decisions they had made.

First of

all, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance very clearly, early last year, made a

commitment to the groups that were receiving core funding. There was an

announcement of about $70 million that was made early on into this mandate. If

the Members would look, and do the proper research and search, it was almost the

very same announcement that had been made in previous years by their minister of

Finance, nearly $70 million.

So in

terms of core funding, there were no cuts last year, Mr. Speaker. The

project-based funding through the Public Engagement office, Mr. Speaker, was

based on non-core funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I've had emails or calls or

discussions with 32 groups who have said they've lost between 35 to 60 per cent

of their core funding. They understand it as core funding, we understand it as

core funding and I think the general population understands it as core funding.

What

youth organizations did you consult or meet with prior to these devastating

cuts, as an open and transparent government, to determine that these were the

best investments for the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

exception when you look at the Association for New Canadians, the kids' helpline

and the YMCA. I take exception when you think about making investments into

those groups that provide great services to the people of this province as not

being a valuable service. That was part of what we had done this year, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

said, the core funding announcement based on over $70 million last year for core

funding was announced very early. For the previous minister to make assertions

and to make comments that this was not the case when they made their decision

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have to make decisions with the information that we

have available to us.

They

were difficult decisions that had to be made. They had refused funding for over

30 associations and groups last year. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in the same

position this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I take exception

to the fact that Boys and Girls Clubs, 4-H, Allied Youth, Big Brothers Big

Sisters, Scouts and Guides: all these other groups who are doing great work have

had their core funding cut.

So I ask

again: After considerable backlash voiced this past week in response to your

government cuts to youth organizations, will you revisit this ill-informed

decision and reverse these devastating cuts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again I point to what is, I think, a situation that we need to address in this

province, and that is how many groups access government funding in this

province. In October of this year, as part of our Way Forward , as part of our vision statement, one of the things is

recognizing how we want to support various associations because they do a

tremendous service to our province.

What we

will be doing is putting in place a single portal so that associations and

organizations will have the certainty of multi-year funding and a single point

of entry for government grants, to support their associations and to thank them

for the great work they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour is in the media reportedly

saying he's open to using changes to the

Memorial University Act to change the way the university is run, adding he

wants to hear the voices of all stakeholders in getting a consensus on any

changes.

I ask

the minister: Will he get consensus by using the same type of consultation that

his government used in deciding to close 54 libraries and dismantle The Rooms,

consulting after decisions are made?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Cheeky, Mr. Speaker cheeky.

No.

We'll ask all stakeholders what their points of view are. For example, we'll ask

the Board of Governors if they could table their report that they're now using

to examine the governance model of the Board of Regents. We'll ask the senate if

they want to contribute, we'll ask MUNFA if they want to contribute. We'll

engage in a broad-based discussion with MUN stakeholders.

Do you

know what? The key point is Memorial University of Newfoundland is a true

provincial treasure. It is an institution which gives each and every one of us

great pride and we all have an ownership in it. So this institution, going into

the 21st century, will indeed be something that we continue to be proud of as we

are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, the federal

government has decided to adopt the Harper government's plan to slash annual

increases in federal health transfers, costing the province half a billion

dollars over 10 years.

I ask

the Premier: What steps has he taken to date to stop this serious cut in our

health funding formula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I have

been trying for over a year, just about, to engage the current federal minister

of Health in some detailed discussions about transfers through the health

accord. The Canada Health Transfer is outside my mandate and rests with premiers

and Finance ministers.

We've

had some difficulty getting traction there. As I said in answer to a previous

question, the starting point for me is not how the money flows, but rather that

at the end of it we start with at least 25 cents on every health care dollar we

spend as a government coming from the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Does he accept the unfair formula and the drastic impact it will have

on Newfoundland and Labrador? If not, what is he doing about it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, what we'll be doing about it is we've had a voice and a discussion

at the premier's table. It's been one that's been started for quite some time

now. We recognize the need for more federal involvement into our health care

system.

Mr.

Speaker, after spending nearly 33 years in the health care sector and spending

quite a bit of time at national tables on other issues impacting health care,

our voice has been heard. I can assure you the Minister for Health and Community

Services, using his experience, his voice has been heard.

recognize there is a need and there is a gap. It's time for the federal

government to invest more money into the health care of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and indeed as Canadians in general. There is willingness for them

to step to the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the

Premier will be at the table on Friday with the prime minister and others and I

ask him will he, as did Premier Pallister from Manitoba, publicly demand the

prime minister stop the cut to federal health transfers and negotiate a new

arrangement? Let people hear his voice.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is

a difference in hearing somebody's voice and delivering results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

What we've been able to do is

deliver results for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on many federal issues, Mr.

Speaker. I will not go through the exhaustive list already that we've been able

to accomplish within the last year.

Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you of one thing, we will bring to the federal table a

very informed, very educated, a very targeted, a very specific call and areas

where we believe the federal government can have an impact on the health care of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, keeping in mind the aging demographics that we

have, where per capita base funding does not work on our behalf.

Mr.

Speaker, I will guarantee you this: The voice of Newfoundland and Labrador will

be heard at that federal table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

As required under

section 51

of the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act , I am pleased to table the annual report of

House of Assembly Management Commission for 2015-2016 fiscal year.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting the

Seniors' Advocate, Bill 64.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I beat you; I do not know how

I beat her today.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 dramatically cut home care

hours to many of our provinces most vulnerable people;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reinstate the much-needed supports

to those who need it and develop a plan to further address the growing needs of

people requiring home care support.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, in presenting this petition, this is an issue I think all of us are

well acquainted with within our districts. Personally, in CBS, I deal with this

and a lot of issues. It's pretty heart-wrenching when you have this 35-hour hard

cap it seems being enforced by the department. People want to stay home. They

want to stay in their own homes. The families want to keep them home. In some

family models, they need that extra one or two hours over the cap to make this

work.

When

you're referred to long-term care because you need 37 hours a week, as opposed

to 35 I've argued this numerous times; I'll continue to bring it up no one

can tell me that 37 hours per week home care is more expensive than putting them

in a long-term care facility. There is no rationale to this policy.

The

family wants to keep them home. They want to stay home. It's the way things

should be. It's cheaper to keep them home but, for some reason, the government

will not listen. They will not budge on this issue.

I've

dealt with a lot of heart-wrenching stories of families in my own district; I

know my colleagues have as well. This issue is something that I really, truly

believe could be fixed with a small, incremental investment. Everything costs

money, but when you're dealing long-term care and the shortage of long-term care

beds, this hard-fast 35 hours, anything over and above, you're on your own.

As it

was reported in the media today, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a man and a

woman who has been together over 70 years. She's level three. He's level two. I

know this is a little bit outside it, but it still brings home the point of the

stress this is putting on the family unit. They're living apart because again

there's no wiggle room; there's no rationale to adjust, to make improvements to

the system. Long-term care beds would be a huge improvement to people who need

it. I'm urging for people that want to stay in their own homes.

It's a

very important issue. Families are very vocal about it, very concerned about it

and it appears that everyone from elected officials' point of view our hands are

tied unless the department makes some adjustments to this totally unfair policy.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government has one again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54

libraries; and

WHEREAS

libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with

little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and

computer access; and

WHEREAS

libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's

literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS

already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation

and cost of libraries;

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

of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a

long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure some folks think: Why are we presenting petitions on

libraries when they're not being closed right now? Well, they're just in

abeyance. There's been no commitment to keep them open. There's a study being

done. So people are still very concerned about their libraries. They haven't

been given a guarantee at all.

This

particular pack of petitions that I'm presenting today is from Harbour Grace.

Citizens who benefit from library services located in Harbour Grace, Cormack,

Daniel's Harbour, Norris Point, in St. George's. Mr. Speaker, when the people of

Harbour Grace heard that their library was to be closed in 2017, they could

hardly believe their ears.

Library

volunteers and patrons were looking forward to 2018 when they would be able to

celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the first public library in

Newfoundland. Imagine, 200 years ago we could fund libraries.

Even

with the very limited resources that were available in 1818, community leaders

recognized the importance of a public library. The people of Harbour Grace

benefited from having a library in the town until the library was destroyed in a

major fire in Harbour Grace in 1944.

In 1946,

Harbour Grace joined the regional library stream that was then in place. In

1947, a major portion of the funds raised at the community fair went to the

library and a new library was built in 1948, in a building known as the War

Memorial Building.

As a

library board volunteer in the community put it, from 1818 to 2017, everyone who

lived in Harbour Grace lived in a community with a library. Unless government

changes it's ill-advised decision, everyone who lives in Harbour Grace after

2017 will live in a community without a library.

Mr.

Speaker, I urge government once again not to force the people of Harbour Grace

to cancel their scheduled 200th anniversary celebration.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union presents

new trade opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has an historic trade relationship

with the United Kingdom; and

WHEREAS

the two regions may mutually benefit from trade opportunities;

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

of Assembly to urge government to develop an economic strategy which capitalizes

on trade opportunities between the United Kingdom and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken about this issue several times this session. It's about

opportunity, opportunity to strengthen ties between the UK and Newfoundland and

Labrador; opportunities to increase trade to support this province's economy;

opportunities to create new jobs so that more hardworking families in

Newfoundland and Labrador have the dignity of work.

This

great province must seize this rare opportunity. Never again will the

opportunity so plainly present itself to refound and improve the trade between

the UK and Newfoundland and Labrador, because a queue has begun to form from

Australia to India, Ghana to New Zealand, all searching to open the British

economy the fifth largest in the world to their products and services. And

Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford to be at the back of the queue. Jobs

depend on it, and government must act.

Given

the hour, Mr. Speaker, I realize my time has expired, but I encourage government

to take specific concrete action. On this side of the House, we're prepared to

work with them to support that effort.

Thank

you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Private Members'

Day, I call on the Member for Ferryland to present his private Member's

resolution.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure today on Private Members' Day to bring this resolution to

the floor. I'll read it out:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges government to request the Conflict of

Interest Advisory Committee pursuant to

section 14 of the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 to review the terms of employment

contract of the Chief Executive Officer of Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and determine the appropriateness of the employment contract; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that this House urges the Lieutenant Governor in Council to

ensure the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee's report on this review be

made public.

Mr.

Speaker, to just give some background on this resolution and where it's coming

from I'll go back and give some perspective and context of where we're to.

Back on

April 21 of this year, on that day the Premier and the Minister of Natural

Resources issued a joint news statement announcing the naming of the new CEO of

Nalcor Energy effective immediately. Attached to that news statement was a

backgrounder containing the biography of the new CEO and shows indeed the new

CEO is eminently qualified to head the large hydroelectric project and our

national utility, Nalcor. It shows as well the strong connection to Fortis, the

major privately-owned power company.

From the

perspective of that and what was announced, there's nothing wrong with taking

the helm of a major private sector company. We applaud that and those who do it

and step forward. We have made success out of their endeavours and have a

significant resume to show for that.

There's

also absolutely nothing wrong with those who have proven themselves in the

private sector. They are stepping up to serve in the public sector; going across

and serving in the public sector. We applaud those and we often need that

expertise coming from the private sector into the public domain. We respect that

and understand it.

It is

absolutely essential that those who serve in public roles have neither real nor

perceived conflicts of interest. They are appointed to serve the public good, to

put the best interest of the people first and foremost.

We have

a piece of legislation in this province that we are all quite familiar with, the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 . The

act has all sorts of provisions that define clear boundaries between what is

acceptable and what is unacceptable for public office holders.

For

example, I'll just reference a few of those.

Section 3, A public office holder

shall not make or participate in making a decision in his or her capacity as a

public office holder where the public office holder knows or ought reasonably to

know that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to benefit

himself or herself or a member of his or her family improperly, directly or

indirectly.

Section

4, A public office holder shall not use his or her position to seek to

influence a decision made by another person to benefit, directly or indirectly,

a private interest of that public office holder or a member of his or her

family.

Section

5(1) A public office holder shall not use or share information that is gained

in his or her capacity as a public office holder and is not available to the

general public to further or seek to further, directly or indirectly, a private

interest of the public office holder .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section

5(2) A public office holder shall not use or share information that is gained

by his or her capacity as a public office holder and is not available to the

general public to improperly benefit another person.

Finally,

section 9, A public office holder shall not engage in an activity, (

a) that

interferes with or adversely influences the performance of his or her duties or

is likely to do so; (

b) that places him or her in a position of conflict of

interest, or is likely to do so; and (

c) in which he or she may acquire an

advantage derived from employment as a public office holder.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, these provisions have been created to draw clear boundaries between

what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for those who hold public office and

make decisions on behalf of the people.

The

protection provided here is a protection for the public good, but it is also a

protection for the individual so they're not put in particular situations where

it's left to them to decide what may or may not be perceived or be actual

conflict. That's very important. So it's not just about one side, it's about

both sides. Both sides; the public and the individual are clearly protected and

there are clear boundaries and terms and an understanding of what can and cannot

be done.

The

greater decision-making ability, the greater the need to ensure that there is

not room for any, even a perception of conflict of interest; oftentimes, it's

the actual perception that is of concern and that needs to be clearly defined

and articulated how that can be relieved, that perception.

understand for some time the CEO appointed was apparently without a contract. So

for that period of time he would have been bound by the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 . In August, four months after the new

CEO's appointment, Nalcor Energy publicly released the CEO's contract. The

interesting point for us was about the comparison of the previous CEO contract

and what the current contract was and how it was made up.

The

former CEO's contract, and I'll share some of the provisions in that that was

renewed in 2009, stated the following in clause 3(c), Subject to the by-laws of

Nalcor and regulations passed or approved by the Board, the Executive shall

perform such duties and exercise such powers commensurate with his office as

may, from time to time, be determined by the Board, and, without limitation, the

Executive shall: not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm,

partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of

which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict

with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of

the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family (this term

having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 ) shall

directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including

Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded

corporation through retirement mutual fund(

s) investment vehicles. That

would be total separate from

what we're talking about here.

So in

the prior contract it was quite direct. There were no expectations that any

shares would be held in any competing entity and, in particular, Fortis was

actually defined in that contract.

As we

move forward and a new contract was formed for the new CEO of Nalcor, we

understand, through ATIPP, that when the first provision or first draft of that

contract was sent, it mirrored the contract of the prior CEO of Nalcor. What we

received back and was part of the new contract of the new CEO was quite

different. That's the issue we have and we look for an explanation of why that

is so. I'll get in briefly in regard to how we went through the process of

asking for that information.

So the

new provision in the conflict of interest for the current CEO, T he

Executive shall not acquire or hold, directly or indirectly, an interest in any

firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or

operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or

conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor, NLH or a company considered

to be a subsidiary of Nalcor in accordance with

section 13 of the

Energy Corporation Act , with the

exception to the foregoing being that the Executive may own 5% or less of the

shares of a publically traded company .

Mr. Speaker, I guess that goes to the issue of why we

raised this issue and have asked, for some time, to get clarity and an

explanation of why you could hold it's not relevant to the value, but why you

could hold shares in Fortis and still operate as CEO of Nalcor and not even have

a perceived indication of a conflict of interest.

Then when you compare that to the previous contract and

what was in place, and you look at the current legislation and some of the parts

that I've read out here today, we've asked for continuous understanding in how

this is and how is came about.

Through this process, I wrote the Auditor General on August

23 and asked based on August 11, 2016, the release of a contract of the new

chief executive officer of Nalcor

was released. In regard to

section 4 of the contract, it includes

provisions related to conflict of interest and specifically the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 , which

obviously, anybody appointed to a public body would have to adhere to.

At that

time I asked the Auditor General to review that contract in regard to the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 , and

the Energy Corporation Act and render

an opinion in regard to if there was a conflict, either perceived or otherwise,

that would exist. I specifically asked that the review done of the current CEO

contract and the prior CEO contract, on a comparative level, that it outlined

here the significant change that was there.

So the

letter from the Auditor General came back on August 31, responded to me, and

said: The Conflict of Interest Act, 1995

provides guidance around issues of conflict of interest and sets out processes

for determining and reporting on potential conflicts and administrative

processes.

Section 14 of the Act

requires that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council Cabinet appoint a

Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee. Among other duties, the Committee shall

advise a head of an agency or deputy minister as to whether a public office

holder is in a conflict of interest.'

The

Auditor General said: In my view, seeking the views of this Committee would be

the most appropriate first course of action to take to determine if there has

been a contravention of the Act or if

the appropriate processes around potential conflict of interest have been

followed.

Subsequent to that, on September 12, I wrote the Premier in accordance with the

advice from the Auditor General, which he said you take advantage of this

provision in regard to the Committee and reviewing a possible conflict. On

September 12, I wrote the Premier and I referenced the Auditor General's letter

to me and asked that he appoint a Committee, do a review in the context of what

I described before, certainly make that available once the review is done and

secure for all those involved, the public, and for the individual that it's

clear and concise, that there's no conflict of interest, or if there is or

perceived, then make that fully aware and versed to all concerned.

I didn't

get a response from the Premier in regard to my letter. To date, I have not

received it. So I guess that's why we're here in the House of Assembly today and

this motion has come forward in asking that the House recognize the importance

of the motion and that it actually be dealt with, because it hasn't been to

date.

As I

said, conflict of interest is extremely important in office holders. This has

nothing to do about an individual's qualifications or whether they're able to do

the job. It's simply regarding the legislation, what it says, and that there's

openness and transparency in regard to a decision rendered, why it is rendered

and how it's tied to the actual legislation. It's all about protecting the

people of the province from real and perceived conflict of interest.

Having

strong conflict provisions not only protects the people, it also protects those

who serve by enabling them to say, if they ever suggested to, that they are

governed by strict conflict of interest provisions put in place to protect the

public good. As I said, that's why we find ourselves here today.

addition to the letters that I wrote, I've asked questions here in the

Legislature to the Premier and to the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to

bringing clarity to some of this. Again, we haven't received clarity. We've got

references to the fact that there have been a lot of discussions.

One day

the Minister of Natural Resources said to me the Committee has reviewed the

conflicts, they have done a thorough analysis, and I went a little bit further

and asked Mr. Marshall to remove himself from anything with regard to Fortis,

for example, any discussion around that, even though he's not in conflict. So

based on that, I asked, well, has the review been done in accordance with the

Committee that's supposed to be struck, and could you make that available?

The

response to that was a copy of the act is available to the Members at all times

and, of course, it does detail what the conditions are under which must be

followed which again doesn't respond to our requests: number one, if the

review was done; number two, if we could see the result of that.

Again,

we're not looking for the information in regard to an individual on their

financial disclosures. That's not what we are looking for. We're looking for the

decision, based on the conflict of interest legislation and why someone holding

shares, no matter what the value is in this particular circumstance, why it's

not a contravention of the conflict of interest legislation.

So again

we asked further. There was reference to the Minister of Finance talked about

I think the Minister of Natural Resources told me it was the board; the board

had made the decision. The Minister of Finance, I think, referenced the fact

that the Public Service Commission ensures that all those individuals that work

in the public sector are reviewed. As the minister, she has already said the CEO

for Nalcor certainly has complied and has gone above that. So again, we're not

sure if it's been done or it hasn't been done, or where it actually stands and

the rationale for it. That's why we bring the issue here today.

The last

point I make is that the Minister of Natural Resources referenced the fact that

the individual only holds less than the 5 per cent threshold that is required

under the act. My understanding, there's no threshold in the act. So she

referenced the fact that there was 5 per cent. To the best of our knowledge,

there is no reference of 5 per cent in the conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So I look forward to

discussion today and debate.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the hon. Member his

time for speaking has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam

Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private Member's resolution today, and

hopefully will be able to answer some of the Member's opposite questions as we

work through the debate this afternoon.

I do

want to say that prior to getting into public office and being elected by the

people of the district that I represent, I had been in business for over 30

years; and I would suggest to this House, quite successfully. So successfully

that I had been recognized by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier of

the Province, for my work; and also, I might add, by the Member for the District

of Ferryland when he was a minister under the former administration.

I can

assure the Members of this House that I understand what conflict of interest is

and what it is not. I would remind the Members of this House that a person's

actions in this area will speak for itself.

It's

very easy to sit on the sidelines and accuse people of conflict. I can tell you

that people in this position are very conscious of their responsibility. It is

taken very seriously. We in this House should not, in a cavalier way, suggest

otherwise. I certainly believe that the Members of this House would not

recklessly throw around suggestions that respectable business leaders would not

act in less than an honourable way.

What I'd

like to do, Madam Speaker, for the remainder of my time is speak to the process

that happens as part of the legislation that governs conflict of interest for

those that serve the public in the province.

The

private Member's motion that's before us today is requesting the Conflict of

Interest Advisory Committee to review the terms and employment contract of the

CEO of Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

As the

Minister Responsible for the Public Service Commission, I'd like to take a few

minutes to go over the Conflict of

Interest Act and how it is applied by the Independent Appointments

Commission and the Public Service Commission.

The

creation of the Independent Appointments Commission and the expansion of the

mandate of the Public Service Commission to deliver an independent merit-based

appointment process is indeed a significant step towards ensuring that the most

qualified people are appointed to the many agencies, boards and commissions that

deliver important services to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is

also a significant step in ensuring the process for appointing individuals to

agencies, boards and commissions is open and transparent. This process is

intended to ensure that the most qualified people are appointed to the many

agencies, boards and commissions, as I said, that deliver important services to

the residents; and all individuals have an opportunity to apply for an opening

on an agency, board or commission which may be of interest to them.

Each

applicant will be considered based on their skills, their qualifications as well

as their experiences. Prior to candidates being recommended by the Independent

Appointments Commission for a tier one board or for a tier one board by the

Public Service Commission, all individuals must complete a conflict of interest

and a personal disclosure statement.

The

Conflict of Interest Act has been in

force since January 9, 1998, and its application to a public office holder or a

person who receives a salary or other remuneration, in whole or in part for

money, voted by the Legislature. This includes all public servants, including

those that are employed by agencies, boards and commissions. It also includes

political staff, including those employed by the House of Assembly; however, it

does not include MHAs, as MHAs are governed by the House of Assembly

legislation.

The act

also applies to post-office employment. A public office holder, or entity in

which the public office holder holds more than 10 per cent interest shall not

enter into a contract or receive a benefit for 12 months following employment

with a department unless the deputy minister issues a waiver to permit the

contract following mandatory consultations with a Conflict of Interest Advisory

Committee, or a contract is awarded by a public tender.

According to the act, if you're employed by a government department, an agency,

board or commission, you must not release, directly or indirectly, information

or documents which are confidential, use information obtained at work to your

advantage or another's advantage, use your position to influence a decision to

benefit you or a member of your family, accept a contract for additional

services from your employing department, and accept a gift or personal benefit

that is connected, directly or indirectly, with the performance of your duties.

Public

office holders are also expected to know the legislation, recognize conflict or

potential situations of conflict, avoid conflict situations and advise deputy

ministers in writing of potential existing conflicts.

Under

the act, there is a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee in place whose role

is to respond to formal conflict of interest inquiries, provide advice and

recommendations regarding conflict of interest to deputy ministers, monitor the

administration and enforcement of the act and educate public office holders on

conflict of interest.

Specifically, Madam Speaker, I will speak this afternoon of Mr. Marshall as it

relates to conflict of interest and to state that Mr. Marshall is not in a

conflict of interest and his contract is consistent with the

Conflict of Interest Act .

As has

been stated in this House by my hon. colleague, Mr. Marshall is fully aware of

any potential conflict and his requirements under the

Conflict of Interest Act . He has confirmed his holdings in publicly

traded companies are substantially less than the 5 per cent limit referenced in

his contract.

The

Department of Justice and Public Safety was consulted on this matter and advised

that Mr. Marshall's previous position with Fortis and his current ownership of

shares in private corporations does not constitute a conflict of interest, in

and of itself, but that conflicts of interest may arise in certain situations

and Mr. Marshall is required by the act and his employment agreement to disclose

the same at the time those issues arise.

For even

greater certainty, the Minister of Natural Resources has requested that Mr.

Marshall recuse himself from any ongoing and future activities regarding

decisions respecting Fortis because of the potential, actual or perceived

conflict of interest. And this was done to ensure there is absolute clarity and

certainty on this matter.

Madam

Speaker, Members opposite certainly have the important job of questioning

government's processes and government's decisions, but as the Minister

Responsible for the Public Service Commission, as well as the

Conflict of Interest Act in

relationship to work of the Public Service Commission does, I want to assure the

Members of this House that the work that needed to be done has been done as it

relates to this specific individual and his contract as an employee, working on

behalf of the people of the province.

And I

would remind the Members of this House of the comments that I made in the

opening, that I think every Member of this House takes very seriously a conflict

of interest and I don't believe that Members of this House are suggesting that

business leaders, respectable business leaders, would act in any other way than

honourably.

That the

provisions under the Conflict of Interest

Act require those business leaders, those leaders like Mr. Marshall, who has

been acknowledged by the Members opposite here for his credentials, would

require him to do anything but operate in a real and an actual situation, or

perceived situation, where there's a perceived conflict of interest that he

would recuse himself, I think, sets a very high standard for Mr. Marshall, one

that I am confident that he will continue to meet and work towards.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

And

thanks to the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune as well for her spirited

support.

I'm

pleased to rise to speak to this motion today. It's a private Member's motion

and it's an important one. I would echo a few of the final words of the Finance

Minister. Everybody in this House takes issues related to conflict of interest

very seriously. And nobody would accuse, in this instance, Mr. Marshall or

anybody else of being anything less than honourable. But that's not what this

resolution is about today.

In fact,

nobody on this side of the House, for one second since his appointment, has

questioned the reputation or integrity or character or capability or experience

of Mr. Marshall. He's a strong, proven business leader and I wish him every

success in his role at Nalcor. That's not what we're here to talk about today.

It might

be what the Finance Minister would like you to believe we're here to talk about

today, but it's not what we're here to talk about today. She spent a chunk of

her time, for the 16 minutes she spoke, talking about the Independent

Appointments Commission.

Madam

Speaker, Mr. Marshall's appointment didn't go through the Independent

Appointments Commission. So I question the relevance of those comments today.

Yes, it's great to talk passionately about conflict of interest and successful

business leaders, but let's get back to what this motion is really about.

As my

colleague pointed out, to understand where this resolution is coming from, you

need to go back to April 21 of this year. On that day, the Premier and the

Minister of Natural Resources issued a joint news statement announcing the

naming of a new CEO of Nalcor Energy effective immediately. Attached to that

news statement was a backgrounder containing the biographer of a new CEO.

I think

it's important to read most of that bio into the record because while it indeed

shows that the new CEO is eminently qualified to handle a large hydroelectric

project, it also shows his strong connection to Fortis which is a major

privately owned power company.

The bio

says, and I quote: served as President and CEO and Director of the Board of

Directors of Fortis. Mr. Marshall's career with Fortis spanned 35 years and he

was at the helm as President and CEO for more than 18 years. Mr. Marshall served

as the Chairman of FortisBC Holdings Inc (formerly, Terasen Inc). He was a

Director of Fortis Properties Corporation. Mr. Marshall was a Director at

FortisAlberta Inc., and FortisBC Inc. He has been Independent Director at

Enerflex Ltd. since 2011 and he is Chair of its Human Resource Committee. He

served as the Chief Executive Office of Fortis Inc. Mr. Marshall served as the

President at Fortis Turks & Caicos. He served as an Interim President and

Interim Chief Executive Officer of Fortis Properties, a subsidiary of FortisBC

Inc., from April 1, 2005 to May 2005. Mr. Marshall served as the Chief Operating

Officer of Fortis Inc. He joined Newfoundland Power Inc., in 1979. He served as

the Chairman of FortisBC Energy Inc. until December 31, 2014. He served as

Chairman of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., until December 31, 2014. Mr.

Marshall served as the Chairman of the Board at FortisBC Energy Inc. until

December 31, 2014. He served as the Chairman of FortisAlberta Inc., from April

17, 2007 to February 2008 and served as its Director from June 2004 to April

2011. Mr. Marshall served as a Director of FortisBC Energy Inc. from November

2007 to December 31, 2014 He served as a Director of Maritime Electric Company

Limited, FortisOntario Inc. and Belize Electricity Limited. He served as a

Director of Fortis Inc. between October 1, 1995 and December 31, 2014. He served

as Director of Caribbean Utilities Co. Ltd. from 2000 to December 31, 2014; He

served as the Director of Newfoundland Power Inc. from 1992 to December 31,

So these

are just excerpts, Madam Speaker, but they certainly establish his career long

association with Fortis and the company's various entities. It's all so obvious

that the gentleman has an extreme level of experience and has lots of

qualifications. Nobody is questioning that for a moment, but what we need to

highlight here, respectfully, in this debate today is the lengthy association

with Fortis and the company's various entities.

And

Fortis is certainly a success story in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's one of

the province's private sector success stories and, no doubt, the current CEO of

Nalcor had a great deal to do with that success and should be commended for

that.

Nothing

we say here today is questioning his integrity or capabilities, not at all. In

fact, the review we are requesting is actually intended to protect him. The

review we're requesting is actually intended to protect Mr. Marshall from

allegations of conflicts of interest that may be raised because of his unique,

unprecedented interest in Fortis as the CEO of Nalcor.

Fortis,

of course, is the parent company of Newfoundland Power which is in a direct

relationship with Nalcor's Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro component. That's its

current relationship. Whether there may be other relationships in future or

whether the current relationship might change are things we do not know, but

they are absolutely things we should be concerned about.

If such

things were to happen then the current CEO could be in, or perceived to be in, a

difficult situation in terms of conflicted interest. To understand the nature of

the province's current and potential relationship with Fortis, let's take a look

at the scope of Fortis.

So it's

profiled on its website I have limited time, so I won't read the full profile

for you, but just to give you a sense of why there should be some concern:

Fortis Inc. has its origin in the formation of St. John's Electric Light

Company in 1885 in the province now known as Newfoundland and Labrador. That

company eventually became Newfoundland Light & Power Co. Limited which became

the first wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Fortis was created as a holding

company in 1987 with the mission to expand and diversify. Today, Fortis is a

leader in the North American utility industry with assets of approximately $47

billion and 2015 revenue of $6.7 billion. Our 8,000 employees serve utility

customers in five Canadian provinces, nine U.S. states and three Caribbean

countries.

Among

the Fortis companies is Newfoundland Power. Newfoundland Light and Power, as it

was formerly known, first sold stock to the public in 1949. Today, Newfoundland

Power is an integrated electric utility and the principle distributor of

electricity on the Island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador. Peak demand in

2015 was 1,359 megawatts. It has over 650 employees, 262,000 electricity

customers, 12,000 kilometres of distribution lines, 139 megawatts of installed

generating capacity, of which 97 megawatts is hydro.

Another

Fortis company is Maritime Electric Company. In 1990, Fortis Inc. made its first

investment outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with the purchase

of Maritime Electric Company Ltd. Maritime Electric has delivered power to

customers in PEI since 1918. Today, Maritime Electric is the principal electric

utility, serving 90 per cent of the Province of Prince Edward Island. Maritime

Electric met a peak demand of 264 megawatts in 2015.

There

are other Fortis companies as well. Fortis Ontario first entered the Ontario

market in 1996 and is a large player in the Ontario market. Another Fortis

company is Central Hudson. Fortis acquired CH Energy Group in June of 2013, and

it's involved in electricity distribution in the mid-Hudson River Valley in New

York State.

Other

Fortis companies include: Fortis Alberta; Fortis BC; ITC, which operated in

Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma; and UNS, which

operates in Arizona, and there are companies in the Caribbean.

My point

is the company is enormous. It's involvement in hydroelectricity development and

hydroelectricity distribution is enormous.

Nalcor

also has its sights set on becoming enormous; extending its reach into the same

markets that Fortis is in, but in a different way. Nalcor is Newfoundland and

Labrador's publicly-owned energy corporation, not a privately-held corporation.

Nalcor's stakeholders are not just some of the people, but all of the people of

this province. Serving the people's best interest is Nalcor's goal.

Fortis,

on the other hand, serves the best interest of its private shareholders and

there's nothing wrong with that, but that is the reality. We need to understand

the distinction between the two.

In the

mid-90s, the government of Premier Clyde Wells embarked on a plan to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Many people remember what happened next. There

was widespread public outrage, so much so that the plan was halted and hydro

remained in the hands of the people, as it should.

In 2007,

the Williams government produced Newfoundland and Labrador's first comprehensive

energy plan. The plan was modelled on the experience of Norway, a poor coastal

jurisdiction of Scandinavia until they established Statoil.

Statoil

took a hand's on role in developing the country's oil and gas resources offshore

and their massive hydro potential. After two-and-a-half decades of producing

enormous wealth to raise the standard of living and improve programs and

infrastructure, Norway established a legacy fund. Norway is today an economic

powerhouse fueled on green hydro power which it is also exporting for profit

while leading in the oil and gas sector worldwide.

Nalcor

was our way to achieve self-reliance by taking the very same path that Norway

has proven. It's one of the most important pillars of our party's long-term

strategic economic plan, but here's the problem. If the assets we own are sold

off to private interests, our capacity to harness these resources for economic

self-reliance could be lost.

Having

seen a Liberal government try once before to sell our hydro assets, and it's not

that long ago, and recognizing that Fortis, or it's company Newfoundland Power,

might well have been one of the bidders, we wonder if the new CEO of Nalcor has

ever looked at the assets of Nalcor as something Fortis might like to own and

profit from. Whether he's looked at it, there are perhaps other people within

the Fortis organization that have. That's a question. It's fine for the Finance

Minister to get on with some kind of bizarre show of righteous indignation

today, but it's a question that we have every right to ask in this House of

Assembly, Madam Speaker.

When a

CEO is permitted by his contract to continue to have a vested interest in

Fortis, a company that deals with Nalcor through Hydro and Newfoundland Power,

then we have every right to wonder if the perception of conflict of interest

crosses the line. Someone needs to make that determination. A Conflict of

Interest Advisory Committee is the body established under the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 to investigate this very kind of

situation. That's its role and this is a situation where its role is clearly

warranted.

In the

term sheet spelling out the conditions of the federal government's 2013 loan

guarantee for the Muskrat Falls Project, we see a provision that states: There

shall be no sale or change of control of any borrower or subsidiaries except as

among the parties and no sale of any material project assets. There should be no

sale or change of control of Nalcor.

When the

Premier spoke some months ago about wanting to sell assets of the province to

raise money to reduce the deficit, he left the perception that everything was on

the table. We were right to ask if any assets held by Hydro or Nalcor might be

on the table.

The

Muskrat Falls term sheet does not cover everything that Nalcor manages but,

what's more, the province has just entered into an extended loan guarantee

written. Might it overwrite some of the terms of the original term sheet? Could

it open a door that right now is closed? Are there talks going on about that?

Who knows, because in this province we don't learn those kinds of things from

our own government. We learn those things from other governments or by other

means. The lack of openness makes people uncertain, it makes them suspicious, it

makes them distrustful and it makes them concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KENT:

Madam Speaker, the peanut

gallery across the way is alive and well today. They may not like what I'm

saying, but at least it's the truth.

The

Minister of Natural Resources is saying it's not. I challenge her to stand in

this debate and explain why, because she knows it's the truth, Madam Speaker,

and that's what is so concerning about this whole debate. Who can blame people

in Newfoundland and Labrador for being concerned?

We've

asked if the new term sheet will prohibit Nalcor from selling assets. We haven't

been given a clear answer, so naturally we are concerned. Indeed, Fortis'

Newfoundland Power, as a power distributing utility, is already intertwined with

the Muskrat Falls Project and affected by project management decisions.

I only

have a minute left, Madam Speaker. Is the Liberal government setting us up for

something? The new CEO of Nalcor quietly brought Hydro-Qubec officials into the

Muskrat Falls site. We know there are talks going on with Quebec despite earlier

denials. We're not being given a clear picture of government's plans for Nalcor.

What

might they be discussing with private sector players such as Fortis? When would

we find out, at the eleventh hour? How do we know what might be going on behind

the scenes and how it might impact this province? People are concerned. These

are questions that we have every right to ask.

When we

look at this government's track record of handling the former CEO severance,

talks with Hydro-Qubec, budget cuts, layoffs, tax hikes, people aren't going to

simply settle for the government opposite saying trust us or that's not true,

as the Minister of Natural Resources just said when there's so much at stake.

Nalcor

controls our wealthiest assets, and that's worth untold billions of dollars. We

have to make sure there are no conflicts of interest that compromise the best

interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's why this motion

matters and that's why this debate matters today, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Before I

get into the content of my remarks today, I want to address a couple of

questions that the hon. Opposition has asked. I think it's very interesting,

Madam Speaker, where they talk about Mr. Marshall is eminently qualified for his

job, he's honourable. They read out his bio that clearly indicates the level of

skills, the level of knowledge, the level of integrity of this honourable

gentleman.

Madam

Speaker, I think it's very, very interesting that in one sense they talk about

how eminently qualified and how world class and world renowned he is, and then

the other side of the discussion they raise issues of and I have a couple of

quotes here the possibility of selling off assets, the possibility of setting

us up for something.

Madam

Speaker, I think we're going to talk today about whether or not conflict of

interest is an issue with this eminent CEO and I'm very happy to give full

details of what this government has been able to ensure for the people of this

province. But I'll also say there is no such effort at this point and I don't

think at any point in our future, especially under this government where we

would not be able to give full disclosure of information that is required.

The

Member opposite talked about discussions going on with the Province of Quebec.

Madam Speaker, we've been very clear of when we've been speaking with Quebec and

what we've been speaking about with Quebec. It has nothing to do with Muskrat

Falls. We did invite members of Hydro-Qubec to come to visit the Upper

Churchill Project. They are part owners of CF(L)Co and it was important that

they came to see their assets because they were under new management.

Madam

Speaker, I'd like to speak today to discuss the private Member's motion

requesting a conflict of interest Advisory Committee to review the terms of the

employment contract of the CEO of Nalcor Energy. This matter has been thoroughly

reviewed and it has confirmed that Mr. Marshall is not in a conflict of

interest.

The

Minister of Finance has clearly indicated the requirements under the act. But as

the resolution speaks to the conflict of interest Advisory Committee, let me

just speak to that for a moment. A Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee

currently exists under the Conflict of

Interest Act, 1995 , and is active in addressing pertinent matters with the

public service.

The

purpose of the Committee is to advise the head of an agency or the deputy

minister as to whether a public office-holder is in a conflict of interest. I

would note that the role of the Committee is to look at activities or private

interests to determine if there is a conflict of interest. The matter of the

content of Mr. Marshall's contract doesn't fall in that role; it would fall to

the Department of Justice and Public Safety for advice.

Over the

next several minutes I would like to itemize for you the steps that were taken

by our government to ensure Mr. Marshall is not in a conflict of interest. Soon

after the time of Mr. Marshall's hiring, Justice and Public Safety provided some

initial general advice and indicated there was no issue with regard to conflict

of interest, particularly on the 10 per cent shareholdings test under the act.

In July

specifically July 22 Mr. Marshall did contact me by letter, disclosing he

was an independent director of the board of Enerflex. He requested confirmation

that this does not represent a conflict of interest. On July 27, mere days

later, I wrote to the Public Service Commission requesting they facilitate the

referral of this request to the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee for

appropriate review and to advise on findings.

September 1, I received a response from the Public Service Commission. The

Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee had considered my request and advised

there was no conflict no conflict unless Enerflex bid on work for Nalcor, in

which case, appropriate disclosure recusal action should be considered. Enerflex

does not do any business in Newfoundland and Labrador at present.

Mr.

Marshall has also disclosed his shareholdings. He confirmed that in all

instances holdings are substantially less than the 5 per cent limit referenced

in his contract. Mr. Marshall's share ownership was subsequently discussed with

the chair of the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee, the Department of

Justice and Public Safety, as well as with the Deputy Minister of Natural

Resources.

Justice

and Public Safety advised that Mr. Marshall's previous position with Fortis and

his current ownership of shares in private corporations does not itself, alone,

constitute conflict of interest. The department provided me with advice on how

to respond to Mr. Marshall appropriately to protect against potential conflict.

In early

November, I wrote to Mr. Marshall, and I would like to read a portion of that

letter to you. I quote and I will table a copy of this letter: Enerflex does

not do business with Nalcor or its subsidiaries at this time and the Committee

does not view your directorship with that company as presenting a conflict

within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and Public

Safety advises that neither your previous position with Fortis, nor your current

ownership of shares in private corporations, constitutes any automatic form of

conflict of interest under the Act. Instead, as contemplated by the Act,

potential conflicts have to be identified as they arise on an operational basis.

As a result, given the importance of the obligations imposed by the Act, I

respectfully ask that in addition to your disclosure requirements under the Act

in the event of potential conflict, you notify me if you become aware that the

companies of which you or members of your household are either a shareholder or

a board member begin to do business with Nalcor or its subsidiaries, or if at

any time you own more than ten percent of the shares of any corporation.

Further,

I noted in my response to him that, good governance would require you this

is under perceived conflict to recuse yourself from any strategic, policy or

commercial decisions or transactions which directly involve any company for

which you may have a direct conflict. As there may be a perceived conflict of

interest with Fortis Inc. and its subsidiaries, please ensure you are removed

from the decision making process with prospect for material effect or benefit to

Fortis Inc. or Newfoundland Power generally.

I shall

table a copy of that letter, Madam Speaker.

closing, I would like to note that as public office-holders we are all bound by

the Conflict of Interest Act . This

applies to me, to you, to Mr. Marshall, or any person who receives a salary or

other remuneration for money voted by the Legislature.

We all

have an obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest as they arise.

Mr. Marshall is a very experienced director. I believe all hon. Members of this

House agree to that. He is eminently qualified. He is world class and world

renowned. He understands how conflict of interest works; furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, he is a lawyer and he understands the rules under the act. In addition,

further oversight will be provided by the new board of directors of Nalcor

Energy to ensure adherence to the Conflict

of Interest Act .

As I've

said, Mr. Speaker, he is a renowned business leader. He brings a wealth of

experience and knowledge to Nalcor Energy. His leadership and expertise is

helping to develop all aspects of the organization, including the Muskrat Falls

Project, for the benefit of the people of this province. We are very fortunate

to have him as CEO of Nalcor Energy and I again repeat, he is not in any

conflict, nor I believe he ever will be.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you so much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

going to start out today by reiterating once again no one here is questioning

the integrity or the competence of the current CEO. What we are questioning, Mr.

Speaker, is what is in the best interests of the people, and ensuring that we

hold government accountable to protecting the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, regardless of who sits in the chair as CEO of the corporation. This

motion here today is all about integrity and protection of the public purse in

the best interest of we, the people.

I'm

going to talk a little bit about Muskrat Falls in terms of its project. Going

into the election last year one of my biggest fears was that a new government, a

new Liberal government, given that it used Muskrat Falls politically for years

and condemned the project for political gain for years, that they would do

something to intentionally harm it, Mr. Speaker. I pray to God every night that

won't happen, but we, as a people, have a right to be concerned and to ask

questions. Muskrat Falls is a good project; even the Liberal government opposite

recognizes that. In fact, the Minister of Finance was one of its biggest

champions in moving the project forward.

The

project will generate billions of dollars in export sales in years to come.

Those billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, are going to come, as I said, from sales

of excess energy, as well as the dividend shares that are owned by the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who have endured so much as a result of this project

and who really deserve to benefit from the billions of profits that this project

will start to generate, come 2021.

This

motion is all about ensuring that we, the people, are the beneficiaries, not a

handful of private sector individuals or Hydro-Qubec, for that matter. This

project will generate wealth for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's

why the Liberals haven't cancelled it because they know it is a good project for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

When a

government develops a strong track record, Mr. Speaker, of being open and

forthright with the people it serves, those kinds of questions don't play on

people's minds. But this government doesn't have such a track record, so we have

to be especially vigilant in asking the tough questions to ensure the best

interest of the people of our province are being protected and not compromised.

That's one of the reasons we need to ask the tough questions about potential

conflicts of interest. It's the reason we need an independent review by a body

that the conflict of interest legislation has established to examine such

matters.

Denying

such a review only fuels the fire and raises greater concerns that something is

up. If there is nothing to hide, then follow the legislation and let the

Committee do its work. If something is flawed, it would be wrong to fail to

identify it and fix it. If nothing is flawed, we will have the word of the

Committee to put public concerns at ease. But until the Committee is allowed to

do its work, we have nothing but the words of the Members opposite who say trust

us.

And

frankly, after the handling of the former CEO's severance, the talks with

Hydro-Qubec, the budget cuts, the parkway posters, the flag policy, the

layoffs, the tax hikes and so forth, people aren't going to settle for a simple

trust us when there's so much at stake.

Nalcor

controls our wealthiest assets, worth untold billions of dollars. We want to

make sure those who manage these resources have no conflicts of interest that

compromise the best interests of the people who own these resources: the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, we want to ensure that no one other than the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador continue to own these assets that will bring them great wealth, not

only

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

commencing in 2041, but

enhancing our ability come 2041 as well.

Conflict

of interest is one of the most serious concerns a government must address, and

there's a reason for that. There are plenty of examples around the world of

public officials taking advantage of their control of the public purse to

benefit themselves, their families and their friends.

One of

the fundamental principles of democracy is that people must be protected from

those whose personal interest conflict with the public interest. If you serve in

public office, your dealings must be above reproach. And the way to ensure it is

to put in place and enforce strict laws against conflict of interest, Mr.

Speaker.

If there

are real conflicts or perceived conflicts, there must be bodies established to

identify those conflicts and address them effectively. Cabinet ministers are

bound by such provisions, MHAs are bound, public office holders throughout the

public service are bound and the CEO of Nalcor is bound, regardless of whether

that CEO is John Doe. What we're talking about here, again, I will say is

protecting the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm

going to talk a little bit about the two different conflict clauses for the

former CEO and the current CEO and point out how the wording of the contract has

been changed.

The

former CEO's contract was quite clear. Clause 3(

c) stated,

the executive shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in

any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or

operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or

conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the

generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family

(this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 ) shall directly hold any shares in

the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting

however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement

mutual fund(

s) investment vehicles.

The new CEO's contract is very, very different. Clause 4

states, The Executive shall not acquire or hold, directly or indirectly, an

interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the

business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly,

compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor, NLH or a company

considered to be a subsidiary of Nalcor in accordance with

section 13 of the

Energy Corporation Act , with the

exception to the foregoing being that the Executive may own 5% or less of the

shares of a publically traded company . Glaring difference, Mr. Speaker.

That exception is no small exception. A 5 per cent share in

Fortis is no small matter. The former CEO had no such allowance. The new CEO not

only has a 5 per cent allowance, but he has a career-long association with a

private company that deals with the company he now manages on behalf of the

people of the province.

Again, I want to reiterate, Nalcor is the people's company.

Nalcor will generate billions and billions and billions of profits and those

profits rightfully belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to

do everything we can to ensure they remain for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, not to the hands of a few private shareholders or entities like

Hydro-Qubec. They belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is not something we can simply dismiss without review

and, on the face of it, what we have to be sure of is that there is no real or

perceived conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker. This change in the wording of the contract can leave some with that

perception.

It's not

just about Nalcor, it's about any public corporation and how the taxpayers'

interests of Newfoundland and Labrador are best protected. The

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 , Mr.

Speaker, has legislation that would settle the question. The

long title of the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 , is An

Act Respecting Standards of Conduct for Non-Elected Public Office Holders and it

would apply to the CEO of Nalcor.

Section

14 of this act states the following:

(1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council

shall appoint a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee.

(2) The Committee shall

(

a) comprise 5 persons, an official of the Public Service Commission, a senior

official of the Department of Justice and 3 other persons representing

government departments and agencies of government; (

b) monitor the

administration and enforcement of this Act to ensure consistency of application

to public office holders; (

c) advise deputy ministers and chief operating

officers on their duties under this Act; (

d) advise a head of an agency or

deputy minister as to whether a public office holder is in a conflict of

interest; (

e) have the duty to educate public office holders as to what

constitutes a conflict of interest; and (

f) certify whether an interest is an

excluded private interest.

So it is

for the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee to ensure the consistency of

application to public office-holders, to advise a head of an agency or deputy

minister as to whether a public office-holder is in a conflict of interest and

to certify whether an interest is an excluded private interest. That is their

role established by law and this is where the law must apply, Mr. Speaker.

As we

were preparing for the debate today we did a jurisdictional scan. We looked

across the contracts for other hydro corporations across the country, Mr.

Speaker. Let's take a look briefly at the

BC Hydro Code of Conduct . Let's see what happens there.

They

have a Code of Conduct document posted

on their website and it states very clearly what a conflict of interest is. Who

must follow their code: The Code applies to BC Hydro and its subsidiaries,

including all directors, and full-time, part-time, casual, and executive team

employees.

In their

statement regarding conflict of interest this is what they say, Mr. Speaker:

We're responsible for making business decisions fairly, honestly and in the

best interests of BC Hydro. Actual or apparent conflicts of interest raise

doubts about the integrity of BC Hydro and the impartiality of our decisions and

actions. We must all avoid any situation that may give rise to an actual or

apparent conflict of interest.

I'm

going to skip on now, Mr. Speaker, because there are so many scans there. I'm

quickly going to run out of time.

They do

say at BC Hydro, you have to ask yourself some of these questions: Could my

actions or conduct undermine the public's confidence in my ability to do my work

or compromise the trust that the public places in BC Hydro?... Do I, or

my friends or relatives, stand to gain anything through my relationship with a

third party doing business with BC Hydro?... Do I feel under any obligation to a

third party that does business with BC Hydro due to my relationship with that

third party?

If the answer to any of the above questions and there

are more than that Mr. Speaker, questions listed is yes' or perhaps' or

could be perceived by third parties to be yes' or perhaps,' you may be in a

conflict of interest and should seek advice from your manager, or the Ethics

Officer or Code Advisor (as applicable).

All we're asking for today is that the 1995 act be enforced

and the committee be put in place. We think it's a very reasonable request. I'd

be baffled if Members opposite don't support it, Mr. Speaker.

Manitoba Hydro's Code

of Conduct ; they also have one. Their

section 7 refers to conflict of

interest: We avoid situations that could result in a conflict of interest, or

the perception of a conflict of interest, such as: pursuing private interests

that could improperly influence the performance of our employment duties; or

using a position with the corporation for personal gain.

Hydro-Qubec Act ,

let's look at that: A board member who exercises functions within the Company

on a full-time basis shall not have a direct or indirect interest in a body,

enterprise or association that places the board member's personal interests in

conflict with the Company's interests.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quickly going to run out of time. Unlike

some of my colleagues who spoke here today and didn't use their full time, I'd

really like to have an additional half an hour because there's so much.

This motion is so important to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador because Nalcor represents billions of dollars to, we, the people.

It is our responsibility, as Members of government, to ensure that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador no one other than the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador realize the benefits and the profits that will be made by Nalcor in

years to come.

Nalcor, too, has a

Code of Conduct . They even offer tips to avoid a conflict of interest. Some

of them are: Do not participate in making a decision where there may be an

opportunity to improperly benefit an individual or family member directly or

indirectly.

Nalcor Employees cannot personally enter a contract with

an outside company or vendor, except under the following circumstances: the

contract existed before the individual became a Nalcor employee, the contract

was awarded by public tender, the contract was made in an emergency, the

contract is for goods and services which cannot be provided by any other

vendor.

The

Nalcor Code of Conduct : Price-fixing,

bid-rigging, kickbacks or any other similar activity related to competitions are

never acceptable. Any employee who engages in these sort of activities will be

subject to immediate termination .

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member that her time has expired.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you so much, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

always an honour to rise here in the House of Assembly. It's an honour to

represent my constituents of Placentia West Bellevue. I thank all Members who

have participated here in debate today.

The

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune wanted more time. It's not about quantity;

it's about quality I say, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important that we're all

held to account for what we say here in this Chamber.

Some

comments were made, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Muskrat Falls. I'm surprised it

took so long for it to get raised on the Opposition side since they seem so

proud of their legacy project that has almost financially drowned the entire

province. She talks about how the Liberals came to power and couldn't cancel or

wouldn't cancel the project because they realized how good it was. Well, perhaps

it was because they had everything bundled up so well over there that the all

the contracts and costs were already expended, that to do so would have sunk us

into more financial ruin.

So we

didn't really have much of a choice other than continue with the PC legacy

project that is now called Muskrat Falls. We see every day in Question Period

here in the House of Assembly, it's almost a topic every day. It just shows the

total lack of planning and ability of management that went into this project

that there's problem after problem after problem.

So I

will get back to the resolution, which is something that the Opposition Members

didn't do. They went to great lengths, Mr. Speaker, getting up and talking about

Mr. Marshall and his eminent qualifications, before then going on to tout

conspiracy theories about Fortis trying to buy Nalcor and the government of this

province trying to come in and privatize the assets, which couldn't be further

from the truth.

Mr.

Speaker, what we see here in this resolution today, as per the norm when it

comes to the Progressive Conservatives, is a total lack of research and

understanding of what they're talking about. So I will echo what has been said

in terms of conflict of interest.

It's

extremely important. I believe that all Members of