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.
I
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.
On
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
things about government. So I hope Members opposite aren't getting too nervous.
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.
As
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.
An
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.
We
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.
I
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, 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 .
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.
In
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,
2007.
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
agreement with the Government of Canada. We understand the term sheet is not yet
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-Quιbec 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-Quιbec, 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-Quιbec 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.
On
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.
In
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-Quιbec, 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-Quιbec, 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-Quιbec. 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-Quιbec 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 this House, both government
and Opposition, realize, understand and appreciate that public office-holders,
whether that means you're an MHA or a Cabinet minister, or a CEO or a chief
operating officer of an agency, or work in any kind of public capacity, Mr.
Speaker, it's very important that the decisions these decision makers take, that
the people of the province can trust that those decisions are taken in the
public interest and not in the private interest.
It's
very clear in the act, and I won't go through it all but I will refer, though,
to section 14(1) of the act, which is very specific. It says, The
Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a Conflict of Interest Advisory
Committee. This is done, Mr. Speaker. This is in place.
Now the
resolution put forward by the Official Opposition is calling on government to
put this committee in place. It's already done, Mr. Speaker. It's already in
action and it already makes decisions based on conflict of interests, potential
conflicts that are referred to them. That really is the crux of the issue here.
How does the conflict of interest legislation work? I would expect that Members
opposite would know about that; however, it appears on the basis of the
resolution and the comments coming forth, Mr. Speaker, this is just not the
case.
Ultimately, per the act, a minister, a deputy minister or the chief of a
department would be the ones deciding whether a conflict exists. If a situation
arises where an individual feels they might be in conflict, they usually raise
that with the head of the department and then the head of the department can
refer that to the committee.
As the
Minister of Natural Resource has just stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, and
explained the process she went through only this summer with Mr. Marshall, where
a potential conflict may have very well arisen that Mr. Marshall felt needed to
be addressed. He wrote the minister and the minister then referred that to the
committee and it came back there was no issue.
So, once
again, we need to look back at the process and what is actually in place and
what exists because it's quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that this government values
transparency and openness. Contrary to what the Member for Mount Pearl North
said, because if I recall, he was one of the ones who stood up for Bill 29 and
supported secrecy. Then we had to empanel a $1.1 million commission to overturn
it all.
It's
quite rich, Mr. Speaker, it's quite rich. I'm only here one year, and I just sit
back and I look. I haven't become jaded just yet as a politician. I still have
my normal looking lens on, and I look at things and I say, well how
hypocritical. Really, is this true what I'm hearing? Are my ears telling the
truth?
A Member
stands up in the House talking about openness and transparency when it was Bill
29, the most infamous piece of legislation that compared us to countries in
Africa and the like, Mr. Speaker, about secrecy and you have the gall to stand
up here in the Chamber and say that this government isn't open. Mr. Speaker,
it's quite rich. I must say it's quite rich.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I digress. Maybe
their researchers can do some more research for them the next time, but I can
tell you that I have absolute confidence in Stan Marshall. I have absolute
confidence in Mr. Marshall and his ability to steward us through this rough
time.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't help but laugh, because I just think back to the comments from
the Member for Mount Pearl North equating Nalcor to Statoil. Well, I'll have to
do a very comprehensive review of Statoil and what they've done, but I don't
think they've plunged Norway into debt. I can guarantee you of that, and I don't
think there's a project they're shepherding through that has been so massively
off schedule and cost to the point where there are issues almost every day.
All I
can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I have full confidence in the process. The
legislation speaks for itself. To follow this resolution would be putting time
and resources to a process that has already been followed, and we know the
Members opposite are fond of offices, strategies and committees for committees.
It was a hallmark of their period of governance. Have an issue, throw some money
at it, create an office and never check up on it again. There was never any
follow up; never following to on the outcomes, Mr. Speaker, and this is another
attempt.
Instead
of bringing a resolution of substance to the House of Assembly, it's another
political theatre, a day here in the House of Assembly when the Opposition takes
control of Private Members' Day. Instead of debating a motion of substance,
we're here talking about a process that has already been followed. In fact,
we've enhanced upon that because Mr. Marshall's contract has already gone to the
Department of Justice, has already been reviewed at that level and nothing has
been determined to see Mr. Marshall into a conflict of interest.
I would
also wonder, Mr. Speaker, we know, as the Minister of Finance has alluded to,
that we've now put in place the Independent Appointments Commission. We know
that prior to this there were a number of political appointments to Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing, such as John Ottenheimer, Len Simms; perhaps the Chief
Electoral Officer, Paul Reynolds. There were also appointments as the chair of
the board of Nalcor.
These
were all very political, partisan appointments. Were they subjected to the
treatment that they're now asking the government to subject Mr. Marshall to? I
wonder, Mr. Speaker, I venture to guess they weren't. I can say this government
values transparency. I certainly think I do.
I'm a
taxpayer of this province, as are all Members of this House, and I would never
want to see a public office holder in a position where they can use their
influence and power to benefit themselves or their families. We are extremely
confident that is not the case here.
To vote
for this resolution, this political theatre is all you can call it, Mr. Speaker,
to vote for this would be to duplicate and to add work upon what has already
been done. As far as I'm concerned, after the deficit they left behind for us,
we have to be putting money where its best used, not at frivolous motions
supported by the Opposition.
Mr.
Speaker, with that, I will just reiterate again, I have full confidence in Mr.
Marshall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
I have full confidence in the
ability of this government to hold people to account.
Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you right now, to finish on this point I shall, back to
what the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said, that this government did
not cancel the Muskrat Falls Project because we thought it was so wonderful.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the size of the deficit, they projected a $1.1 billion deficit last
year. It turns out it was well over $2 billion, and to suggest we did not take a
second look at that project because we loved it so much, because it was just so
wonderful, Mr. Speaker. Well, I can tell you, I take great offence to that. I
can tell you, we did take a second look at it but it was just so bungled up in
committed costs that we were already sinking with it.
We have
put a team in place at Nalcor, a new board of directors, a new CEO and a team in
place at the Department of Natural Resources to effectively manage this process
and to effectively manage this project. Because right now, we have to take on
this project that we inherited, Mr. Speaker, to ensure the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador have the best value for their money going into that
project and to see everyone benefit from a project that the Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune thinks will generate and I quote billions and billions
and billions and billions, but that remains to be seen. I certainly hope she's
right, but at this point I have a fair degree of doubt.
To
finish, I will say, in terms of conflict of interest, Mr. Marshall's contract
has gone to the Department of Justice
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
and gotten the seal of
approval. A specific instance that he referred to the Minister of Natural
Resources has gone to the committee that already exists, that the Opposition is
asking us to strike, and it has all been determined to be above board.
That is
so important, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that and
know that, Mr. Speaker. Because we would never put the taxpayers of this
province in such jeopardy as what was done constantly by Members of the other
side. So I say thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the other
presenters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I have been advised
that I should have recognized you prior to recognizing the hon. Member, and I
apologize for that.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I do
acknowledge your recognition; I appreciate that.
I am
happy to be able to stand today and speak to this private Member's motion which
has been put forward by the Official Opposition. I think it's important to note,
especially because of what my former colleague said, that the resolution
recognizes that there is a conflict of interest committee in existence that is
put in place as part of the Conflict of
Interest Act.
What the
resolution is asking for is that the government request that Committee, not a
new one, but that Committee, 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.
Now,
it's very interesting, the Minister of Natural Resources got up and gave us a
whole history of what she called conversations between her and the Committee.
What she tabled was her letter to the chief executive officer of Nalcor, but did
not table any documentation of discussions that went on. When you read reports
of that Committee, for example, the last report was the report for 2015-2016,
the report points out, and I think this is very significant, in 2015-2016, there
were 14 formal requests for advice that were received by the Committee and there
were informal consultation services in response to 18 inquiries.
I'd
really like to know if the government really did, and if the minister was really
involved in this discussion, number one, was it a formal process or an informal
process, and why don't we have documentation.
General
speaking, I am told that the Committee doesn't publish reports; however, they
respond to letters that are sent to them concerning issues of conflict of
interest. So did the minister send a letter? Was there anything in writing? What
the minister should be tabling here is all of that documentation, not just her
letter to the chief executive officer. We want the proof.
If the
minister, if that paper exists and she can show that all this took place, then
if she had stood when she was first questioned in this House and answered it and
put those out then, we wouldn't be having this motion here today.
This
government who calls itself so open and transparent well, when you read
through the Question Period and the responses from the minister, there was no
openness and transparency. Finally today, we were forced into this situation.
And if those documents exist, and the minister is indicating she has them, then
table those and show us that the Committee was contacted and then show us what
their response was, not just her letter to the chief executive officer.
That's
all that had to happen, Mr. Speaker. I really look forward to seeing if that is
going to happen. It's not irresponsible of the Opposition to be asking this
question. People out there, the public is asking the question. The Opposition
brought that question to this House because the public want to know. It is
obvious when you know the history of what went on, and it has been put out here
a couple of times today, that the contract with the current CEO of Nalcor, that
contract was custom written because of the personal situation. That's not a
condemnation of Mr. Marshall, but that's a reality. Because of his personal
situation, there was a contract that was custom written that changed what the
contract had been with the former CEO.
The
government so wanted Mr. Marshall in that position and he very well may be the
best person in that position that they actually custom wrote his contract;
that's the reality. There was a draft contract in June which doesn't mention the
shares, but the one that he signed is the one that talks about less than 5 per
cent shares.
So if
all of that custom writing involved discussions, formal discussions between the
minister and the Committee, the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee, then
that documentation should be put out here to be shown openly so that people will
know for sure what this went through.
I know
the minister mentioned the Department of Justice, and I'm not saying the
Department of Justice doesn't have the skills; they obviously do. The Department
of Justice is actually a part of the Advisory Committee. One of the ADMs of
Justice right now, I think, was on that Committee, but that's only one piece of
the Committee. The Committee includes the Public Service Commission, the Human
Resource Secretariat, Transportation and Works and the president of the College
of the North Atlantic. They're the members of the Committee. I didn't give names
to all of these people, but this is public knowledge. If we could get it, it's
public knowledge. If people want it, they can get it.
So it's
not enough to tell me what the Department of Justice said, I want to know what
the Committee said and I think that's what my colleagues in the Official
Opposition want to know as well. Let's put it all out. Let's stop the games over
this and get everything out there. And if it turns out and I'm not saying that
is the case that the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee wasn't consulted
as a Committee formally and that we don't have anything in writing from them,
then I say, yes, I want that request to happen. Because that's what should have
happened, and if it has, give us the proof that it did.
I ask
the minister that if she's had that proof and she's going to table it here today
because she sort of indicated physically across the room that she does, then I
ask her why didn't you, weeks ago, present that to us. I don't understand.
And
having said that, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have anything else to say. I
think I've made my points fairly clear.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to take a couple of minutes now and speak to this private Member's motion. I
think the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi certainly echoed my thoughts
on this. I do want to say, as other Members have said, this has nothing to do
with Mr. Marshall or his credentials, or his integrity or anything. Nobody is
questioning that on either side of the House, I'm sure. That's not the issue at
all.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, b'y.
MR. LANE:
I'm hearing someone say: No,
b'y. Well, I say to whoever is saying that: No, b'y, it's not. It's got nothing
to do with Mr. Marshall as an individual. Mr. Marshall today could be Mr. Jones
tomorrow. That's not the issue.
And
what's been raised here I believe is a very legitimate concern. I will say that
I, too, wrote the Auditor General back a couple of months ago about this
particular situation. Of course, I had also written him and met with him for him
to go into Nalcor and start having a look around to see what's going on there,
because I believe the people's faith in Nalcor is certainly diminished over the
last number of years. It's important that the Auditor General go in there and
try to restore the people's confidence in our Crown corporation of which we
are the only shareholder, I might add.
In
addition to that particular effort, I also wrote the Auditor General about this
specific issue, and I'm glad to hear the Member for Ferryland also did that. I
guess what the Auditor General has suggested in his wisdom, is that this matter
is to go before the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee, as per section 14
of the Conflict of Interest Act, and
let them review the matter to determine if indeed there is a conflict or if
there isn't. That's all that's being asked for here. I don't think it's an
unreasonable ask.
If that
has been done, as has been said, if that has been done and that documentation
that review has been done and there's documentation saying it went through this
process, which is outlined in the act and which has been recommended by the
Auditor General, if that has happened, then there must be documentation. Surely
goodness we don't have a Conflict of
Interest Act that says matters of potential conflict of interest would go
through this committee and they're just going to pick up the phone, give their
advice verbally and hang up, and that's the end of it.
Surely
goodness, if it went through that process there would have to be documentation
surrounding the discussion that was had, the issues that were looked at and what
their findings were and so on. Surely that would have to exist. If that has been
done, because the minister has indicated that she well, I'm not quite sure, to
be honest with you, what she said. She talked about the Department of Justice
and she talked about the Public Service Commission. She did talk about a
committee.
I'm not
sure if the committee she referred to is the same committee we're talking about
in this particular resolution and in the act. I don't know if it's that
committee of not. I'd love to have clarification if it is or if it isn't. But if
she has gone through that committee, then there has to be documentation. All
we're asking for is, show us the documentation. Show us the rationale as to how
they determined there was, indeed, no conflict of interest. That's all we're
asking for. That's what people want to know. People deserve to know that.
When you
look at the fact that the former CEO, as I understand it, had a contract and in
his contract it said that he could not own any shares in any businesses that
were doing business with Nalcor. It said he couldn't have any, zero; not less
than 10 per cent, not less than 5 per cent, it said zero. He could have none.
I
believe, I haven't actually seen his contract, but in speaking to the Member for
Ferryland, I believe it specifically talked about Fortis, specifically said he
could have no shares whatsoever in Fortis. So if the former CEO could have no
shares in Fortis, and that was in his contract, then why would it change?
Because somebody new comes in who does have shares in Fortis, all of a sudden
we're going to change the contract.
I've
listened to questions being asked in the House of Assembly by the Official
Opposition in particular on issues around this and the answers I keep hearing is
that Mr. Marshall is not in a conflict because he is following the guidelines
that are laid out in his contract. I have no doubt that he is. The problem is
not about whether he is or isn't abiding by his contract. The issue is around is
the contract itself an issue? That's the question.
What the
Auditor General has suggested is the appropriate mechanism to get the answer to
that question is to go through this committee, under the
Conflict of Interest Act, and let them make that determination as to
whether or not the contract itself is an issue. Not whether Mr. Marshall is
following his contract, because I believe he is. I'm sure he is, but is that
contract in itself proper? Particularly, given the fact that the former CEO's
contract said he could have no shares, no shares whatsoever, in Fortis or in any
other company but now the new guy can have less than 5 per cent, I believe is
the number.
Whether
it's 5 per cent, 25 per cent, 95 per cent or 0.5 of a per cent, the fact of the
matter is that Nalcor is doing business with Fortis, and if Fortis should
benefit from those dealings and their profits should increase and so on, well
then so does all the shareholders. They will benefit personally. Whether a
shareholder owns 1 per cent or 90 per cent, they are still benefitting. Then we
have issues around family members. Do families own shares in Fortis as well.
That's another issue that we need to find out and we need to make sure there are
no concerns there.
This is
not about saying that Mr. Marshall is doing anything wrong. I am sure he is
following his contract. The concern is with the contract itself. That is the
issue. It's with the contract itself, and is that contract proper. The only way
according to the law, to the act, what it says and on the advice of the Auditor
General is to bring it through this particular conflict of interest committee
and let them render a decision.
All
we're saying in this resolution is (a) if you haven't done it, you need to do
it; and (b) if you've done it or if you decide to do it, once it's done provide
the House of Assembly, provide the public with a copy of that decision and the
rationale as to why there is no conflict of interest.
I cannot
understand, for the life of mem why every Member in this House of Assembly
wouldn't vote in favour of that. There's nothing to not vote I cannot
comprehend why all Members in this House would not vote in favour of that
motion. There's nothing to hide. If it's done and it's done properly, then
that's it, end of issue. The issue is over. It goes away and everybody has some
confidence that everything is fine, but when you leave those types of issues
hanging and you don't provide the information, all it's going to do is lead to
more skepticism, it's going to lead to more mistrust and it's going to continue
to diminish the confidence that people have in their own company.
I have
to say again for the record, it is our company. We own it. He might be a
shareholder of 5 per cent or less in Fortis; we are shareholders of 100 per cent
in Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
One hundred per cent. It is
our company. It is our money. We own it. Everybody at Nalcor works for us,
including the CEO. We have a right to know that everything is done properly. No
one is saying it's not done properly, but we just need to have that process take
place and to have that documentation and to have it presented to us publicly so
we all know and can be confident that everything is above board the way it
should be and that there are no conflicts and there are no issues, and then we
can move forward.
Everybody wants to move forward. It is in our best interest that Nalcor succeed.
They're going to have a huge impact on our collective futures; they really are.
We have to make sure everything is done the way it should be done and everything
is done in our best interests, because we own the company. So that's all that's
being recommended here in this private Member's resolution.
I've got
to say because I will make one response to the Member for Burin Placentia
West I think that is the name of the district when he says there's nothing
of substance to this private Member's motion. I was kind of shocked when I heard
him say there's nothing of substance. This is a huge issue.
If you
want to talk about nothing of substance, it's only a couple of weeks ago we
stood in well, I didn't, but some Members stood and debated a pilot project
for nighttime paving that's going ahead anyway. It's going to go ahead; it
doesn't need approval of the House, nothing. And we spent the whole afternoon
talking about something that's already going to happen. That's what we did.
And now
we're going to call this, we're going to say there's no substance to this. My
God, no substance to something like this a company that's spending billions of
dollars, our dollars. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we just get these
answers.
I will
certainly be supporting the motion; I hope all Members will. There's no reason
why everybody wouldn't support this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
If the hon. Member speaks
now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank everybody today, those who participated in the debate on the motion. I
certainly recognize the Minister of Finance, the MHA for Mount Pearl North, the
Minister of Natural Resources, the MHA for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, the MHA
for Placentia West Bellevue, the MHA for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and the
MHA for Mount Pearl Southlands.
It was a
full discussion, I certainly think and I think most Members do. It's a
significant motion and important when you look at the overall operations of
government, you look at the conflict of interest legislation and you look at we
have people that hold positions of authority, very senior positions, very
qualified individuals that come in and have vast experiences and hold those
positions. In this case, we've recognized the ability and talents and experience
of this actual individual. That's not the issue here, talking about his
qualification. The issue is in regard to the conflict of interest legislation,
is it being adhered to and the public is made known how it's been adhered to.
It's not
so much about the contract itself because the contract has changed dramatically,
as we talked about today, from what existed prior to this CEO, the prior CEO and
what the current CEO has today. Basically the conflict of interest has been
changed. It would appear to address his personal circumstances in regard to
holding shares in Fortis. That's fundamental to the issue of what we wanted to
have defined.
This has
gone on for quite a while. In August, I wrote the Auditor General, I mentioned
before, and asked the Auditor General if he could look at this and the Committee
in regard to the conflict of interest and take a look and tell us if this was
appropriate and it was in accordance with the act and whether it was in
accordance with the relationship to the prior CEO and the contract that was
there.
The
Auditor General got back to me and basically said there's a provision under the
legislation, article 14 I think it is, that a conflict of interest committee
would be struck by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Cabinet, to specifically
look at this issue, render a decision and you should do that first.
He
certainly recognized that it was an issue of content, I believe, and he gave me
that direction to proceed with that. As it was the Lieutenant Governor in
Council, I did write the Premier as well on September 12 and asked for that
specifically, referenced what the Auditor General had said, what his
recommendations were in accordance with the legislation that this Committee be
struck. To date, I have not got a response to that request.
That's
certainly problematic in and of itself because we think it's important, and I
think we've heard people today that certainly see it as important in regard to
having it addressed.
In
commentary last week, I've asked questions here in the House directly to the
Premier, directly, I think to the Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister of
Finance has commented back then. I asked for the update on that letter to the
Premier and on the request to have this Committee struck and, respectfully,
we've had a variety of answers. We've had: This was done by the board of Nalcor.
We've had: This went to the Public Service Commission. We've had that a
committee reviewed it but no one ever told us whether it's the Committee under
the legislation, whether a report was done, whether it's available. I did ask in
Question Period: Is it available; can we see it? But again no clarity, no
transparency in regard to what has transpired with this issue.
Again
today, some more information added from the Minister of Natural Resources when
she got up and said she had letters she had sent and responded to, and sent to
Justice and various departments that looked at it and that sort of thing. What
this motion is all about is clarity and openness. Under the legislation an
Advisory Committee is struck to look at the particulars of this case. That was
recommended from the Auditor General. I proceeded to have that done, no
response; asked in Question Period what's the activity, what's gone on here,
again, not the response that we should get. Today, we get other information
provided to us which is not sufficient.
This
motion is about once and for all let's follow the legislation, let's follow what
the act says, let's direct this Committee to review this contract, give an
opinion in regard to whether it's in keeping with the legislation, in regard to
someone holding shares is identified here the share value is not an issue.
Whether it's $1,000 or $5 million, it doesn't matter; the issue is the same.
That's what we have asked to be looked at, that's what this motion is all about
and that's why we brought it to the House today.
So what
this would bring would have been openness, clarity, and transparency to this
issue. I certainly hope Members would vote and support this motion. It would put
it to rest, one way or the other, in terms of having it addressed in accordance
with the legislation, would bring it forward.
As I
said, this has gone on now for almost three months, asking for the information
and asking that it be addressed. It's a serious issue we believe, and certainly
Members have articulated that. It is an issue of significance and importance any
time you're talking about a conflict. Whether perceived or otherwise, it is
extremely important. And certainly that is what this motion is all about is
addressing it, and I certainly ask all Members in the House to seriously
consider this as it is a significant issue and it's important to have this
resolution adopted. Then we'll move forward and urge government to take the
action that the resolution is asking the House to do today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
All
those against, nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
Opposition Whip ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek
Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Finn, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: six; the nays: 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
declare the motion defeated.
It being
Private Members' Day, the House is now adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.