November 6, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 29
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
Speaker's gallery today, I'm very pleased to introduce Ms. Rose Adams. Ms. Adams
was in Labrador last week sharing her message of overcoming an extremely
difficult childhood in foster care to become a very successful lawyer and
motivational speaker.
Sponsored by the Rotary Club and Terrington Cooperative, her message of dealing
with adversity provided inspiration for hundreds of students and community
leaders.
Welcome,
Ms. Adams.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to recognize in
the gallery today Mayor John Spencer and councillor Jim Lane from the Town of
Port aux Basques.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome two
people who will be the subject of a Member's statement today, Mr. Bob Dawson,
who is the executive director of the Froude Avenue Community Centre, along with
Enid Pendergast who is a social worker.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome
Carter Churchill, who is a deaf Grade 1 student, along with his parents Kimberly
and Todd Churchill, who are here today for the presentation of a petition.
A very
big welcome to you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Finally, as is tradition, I'd
also like to recognize in the public gallery a former member and minister, Ms.
Susan Sullivan, who represented the District of Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans.
A very
big welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we begin with Members'
statements today, I understand the hon. the Premier has leave to give a
statement.
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a real-life superhero, Miss Isla
Short.
Mr.
Speaker, Isla Short embodied the definition of inspiration and bravery. She was
diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma in December 2015 when she was just 18
months old.
Isla
inspired those around her so much that a children's book was written in her
honour with a positive and uplifting message about how cheerfulness and love can
inspire all of us.
Mr.
Speaker, Isla's circle of love is so profound that her hometown of Deer Lake
changed its name to Islaview in her honour for a day.
Tragically, Mr. Speaker, the Town of Islaview lost its leader last week at only
3½ years of age; and her family, her friends and hometown are mourning a great
loss.
Isla's
light shone for only a short period of time, but it shone so bright that many of
us will continue to see it forever.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House to keep her parents, Michael and
Sarah Short, in their thoughts and their prayers. Isla will forever be known as
one of the bravest and the most fearless resident of the town that I call home,
Islaview.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
from the hon. Members for the Districts of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune,
Conception Bay South, Placentia West – Bellevue, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte –
Green Bay, Windsor Lake.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
to recognize the 102nd birthday of Laura Gale on July 12 this summer, a very
special lady who spent her life caring for others. Laura's longevity is due in
part to her warm-hearted nature and her strong work ethic.
Laura
has a fantastic memory and it's a real treat to share in her recollections of
growing up in Bay d'Espoir, including her experience when the 1929 tsunami
struck. With her gift for storytelling, one can visualize her fleeing for
safety, jumping fences along the way and meeting her mother's kettle coming out
through the door as she approached her home.
Laura
did the hardest kind of work during her service at the Stephenville military
base from 1942 until its closure in 1966, caring for local priests until she
retired at 65 and then her mother who lived to be 99. You were very lucky indeed
if you ever enjoyed some of her fancy cooking and renowned baked Alaskan pie.
Friends and family adore Laura for her wonderful humour and compassion – she
never complains and accepts life for what it is. She still loves to socialize
and play bingo.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing Laura a very happy 102nd
birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on September 23, I had the pleasure of attending the Canada 150
Ceremonial Tree Planting Event held at Manuels River.
The
Manuels River Hibernia Interpretation Centre was the only site in our province
chosen to take part in this tree-planting initiative, sponsored by the
Government of Canada. As part of the celebration, we planted trees to celebrate
Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation.
Trees
are a symbol of growth, strength, sustainability, hope and peace. Three
commemorative trees were planted, including: the Canadian red maple,
representing Canada; the white birch tree, representing First Nations; and the
Newfoundland pine, representing Newfoundland and Labrador. Approximately 600
various Canadian trees and 300 shrubs were also planted along the Manuels River
Trail through the Tree Canada program.
Mr.
Speaker, this was a great event and the environment was one of the major themes
at the heart of the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The
Canada 150 project, Tree to our Nature, will leave a lasting legacy for future
generations.
I would
like to acknowledge everyone for taking part in this inspiring project.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, not once, not
twice, not three times – in fact, I've lost count – but, Mr. Speaker, she's done
it again!
At the
most recent Skate Canada International Competition – one of the prelude
competitions leading up to the Olympics in South Korea – Kaetlyn Osmond not only
outpaced the 12-women field competing for this coveted podium placing, she came
away with a gold medal win.
She
first won this same title in 2012, then at the age of 16, prior to her
devastating injury which most pundits said would derail her promising skating
career. “Not so,” she said, and true to the Marystown spirit bred in her, she
vowed to rise again. Mr. Speaker, she has time and time again.
Earlier
this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming Kaetlyn back to the province, along
with family and fans, and I can tell you unequivocally she is skilled and
talented, and she is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian first.
We are
proud of her accomplishments; we revere her humility and poise. But her greatest
gift is the example that she is, that no matter if you are from Medicine Hat,
Montreal or from Marystown, with the support of your family, of community and
belief in yourself, you can compete on the world stage.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in saying congratulations and good
luck as Kaetlyn heads towards the Olympics.
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.
On June
26, a devastating fire destroyed eight homes in the Froude Avenue community,
severely damaging an additional 14 homes. It was a night of incredible loss.
Families with children, seniors, people with physical disabilities lost
everything they owned, escaping with simply the clothes on their backs. Family
pets, irreplaceable family heirlooms, photos were gone. Shock, fear and terror,
the whole community was grief stricken.
When I
arrived on the scene, police, firefighters and other first responders were
working hard to get the fire under control, ensuring the safety of the
community.
In the
midst of it all, making sure everyone was being taken care of, were Bob Dawson,
Enid Pendergast and Lyndsay Hynes, the amazing team of Froude Avenue Community
Centre. They worked all through the night coordinating efforts of the dedicated
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing workers, making sure everyone was accounted
for and housed for the night, that people had their necessary medications.
They
continued to help people deal with the grief, shock and so much more. The
community responded with generosity, and donations poured in. The compassion was
astounding.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking Bob, Enid and Lyndsay who championed the
recovery of their community. They are true heroes, Mr. Speaker. Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Mr. Dennis Gill of Pilley's Island who was recently appointed
to serve his third term on the provincial advisory council for the inclusion of
persons with disabilities.
Mr. Gill
and his family have firsthand knowledge of persons living with challenges as
their son Daniel has severe intellectual and physical development delays, and he
has turned his understanding of these challenges into advocacy for families.
Mr. Gill
also serves as President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for
Community Living as well as a member of the Canadian Association. He was awarded
the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal for his volunteer work with
associations that strive to better the lives of people with disabilities.
Mr. Gill
is a retired educator and is especially interested in providing inclusive
education for children with intellectual disabilities to ensure they are
included in regular classroom activities.
I would
like to invite all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation to an
outstanding Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Dennis Gill for his continued
compassion towards persons with disabilities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
It is with pride, Mr. Speaker, that I rise today to recognize Verafin and the
amazing support they have shown Thrive's Blue Door Program this year.
Located
in my District of Windsor Lake, Verafin is a successful global company that
offers solutions to combat fraud and money laundering. Blue Door's programs are
designed to support children and young adults to exit exploitive situations,
including sex trafficking.
Two
events were hosted by VeraCares to help raise money to support the survivors in
the Blue Door Program.
The team
at Verafin organized a walk/run event which was held on Sunday, September 24.
Almost 200 Verafin employees, family members, runners, walkers and Thrive team
members participated in the event at Bowring Park. With the success of the
event, the wonderful team at Verafin plans to make the walk an annual one.
A
charity softball tournament was also organized with seven corporate teams,
including one from Verafin, joining together on September 29 to raise even more
money for Blue Door's work. Both these events raised over $20,000.
What an
amazingly powerful partnership between Verafin and Blue Door.
I am
honoured to recognize team Verafin for the tremendous work they have done to
give back to our community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to
congratulate Joel Thomas Hynes on receiving the 2017 Governor General's Literary
Award in the English fiction category for
We'll All Be Burnt in Our Beds Some Night.
In what some consider the most
prestigious literary prize in the country, Hynes' novel was one of 14 winners
chosen from a list of 70 finalists.
We'll All Be Burnt in Our Beds Some
Night, which is also longlisted for the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize, is
about one man's kicking-and-screaming attempt to recuperate from a life of petty
crime and shattered relationships. The award jury praised the story as “an act
of full-throttle imagination and narrative invention.”
Mr. Speaker, along with being an
acclaimed author, Joel Thomas Hynes is certainly making his mark in the
entertainment scene across this country. As an award-winning, multi-disciplinary
artist, he has worked in the Canadian film and television industry for more than
15 years as a writer, actor and director.
Currently, Hynes is starring as
lightweight boxer Tommy “Little Dog” Ross, who engages in a haphazard quest for
redemption in the CBC series called “Little Dog.” This dark comedy is set to be
released in 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, Joel Thomas Hynes is a shining example of the many talented artists we
have here in our province. Newfoundland and Labrador has a rich and unique
artistic community that works tirelessly to create, produce and showcase some of
the best work featured in this country and around the world.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Joel Thomas Hynes
on his Governor General's Literary Award, and his continued development into one
of the most distinctive and recognizable voices in Canada.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr.
Speaker, we, too, are pleased to congratulate Joel Thomas Hynes on receiving the
Governor General's Literacy Award. This is indeed a very prestigious award that
recognizes some of the best Canadian books there are to offer. I also
congratulate Mr. Hynes on having his book longlisted for this year's Giller
Prize, which also recognizes excellence in Canadian fiction.
Mr.
Speaker, what an honour for Mr. Hynes, for his family and for his friends and,
indeed, the entire province. Mr. Hynes originates from Calvert on the Southern
Shore and, again, is an indication of the great talent that we have on the
Southern Shore in terms of culture, theatre and talent of all those involved in
the theatre industry. He's certainly a very talented individual and I'm sure
that given his abilities across so many disciplines, there's much more to come
from Mr. Hynes.
I look
forward to and wish him success and join the minister in congratulating this
tremendous achievement by Mr. Hynes, and I'm sure there's more to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for the advance copy of his statement. How great to celebrate Joel
Thomas Hynes right away on Monday today. I had the privilege of working with
Joel on a writing and film project in Her Majesty's Penitentiary. It was amazing
to watch his passion and compassion and insight at work. It is those incredible
skills he brings to all his work.
Joel has
won the Governor General's Award, how perfect – how very, very perfect is that.
Bravo, Joel Thomas Hynes!
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I had the
opportunity last week to showcase our mineral exploration and mining industry at
Mineral Resources Review, which is Atlantic Canada's largest industry conference
and trade show, attracting over 700 delegates, exhibitors and visitors.
Mining
is a major contributor to our economy and this year's conference provided a
great opportunity to highlight the work we are doing to advance the province's
mineral exploration and mining industry, which currently employs 5,000 people
and is forecast to ship $3.7 billion in minerals this year.
Our
government supports growth in the mineral industry through public geoscience,
efficient and transparent regulation, the core-storage program, promotions,
prospector training and mentoring and the mineral incentive program.
We are
attracting exploration activities and generating new development. We are working
closely with the mining industry and with communities in which they operate to
increase investment and grow the economy.
And the
results are tangible – exciting things, for example, are happening at Canada
Fluorspar, which is well into the construction of their mine in St. Lawrence.
IOC just did their first blast on the Wabush 3 project, which is always exciting
in the mineral industry. And in Wabush, Tacora is completing a feasibility
study, representing another important milestone in the efforts to restart Wabush
Mines. In addition, there are many advanced exploration projects ready for
potential investment in gold, base metals, rare earth minerals and other
commodities.
I'd like
to thank all those involved in the Mineral Resources Review. By creating an
attractive environment for exploration, we are strengthening the industry and
growing private sector jobs and the economy throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, too,
commend all of those who took part in the Mineral Resources Review last week and
the success we've seen in the province.
Over the
past number of years, there's been work and due diligence done as it pertains to
the provincial mining industry and the mining exploration industry in general in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This industry, as the minister has indicated, is
immensely valuable to the provincial economy and the industry is one of the
largest employers in our province.
While we
have hope and optimism for the provincial mining industry, future growth and
development in this sector can only be made possible when a government creates a
climate that consists of growing the economy and strategically encouraging
resource development, along with the environment, for investment.
There is
optimism for the provincial mining industry. I suggest and encourage government
to continue their efforts which result in growth and development and further
investment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I think it is good
that government is working with the mining industry attracting exploration and
generating new development, but government cannot forget the social
environmental consequences of mining.
Government must ensure that communities involved in mining developments be the
prime beneficiaries of these projects. Government must also ensure the
environment does not take a backseat to job creation. We still have too many
cleanup projects from irresponsible mining development in the past.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the economy is on everyone's mind, especially here in Newfoundland and
Labrador where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout our province fear for
what lays ahead.
The
Auditor General released a report just last month and he indicated that
government's expenses were reduced by $187 million, or 2.3 will be reduced over
the next six years; $187 million, Mr. Speaker, over six years.
I ask
the Minister of Finance, when will he roll out his expenditure reduction plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for his question. It is an important question because the fiscal
situation that the province is in is on the minds of everybody in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We are very concerned on this side. We've said we're taking a
balanced approach to how we deal with that fiscal situation.
The
Auditor General, when he released his report, had said we'd made great strides
in reducing the province's deficit. We're going to continue to do that. We're
going to continue to practice responsible, fiscal management and to return this
province to a sound, fiscal footing. Mr. Speaker, that's our aim, that's our
goal.
Our
mid-year update, I say to the Member opposite, will be coming – I promised it by
the middle of November, the middle of November is fast approaching and you'll
have it by then.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
appreciate the information from the minister. All the way back to 2016-'17, the
government was talking about expenditure reductions. The Auditor General has
referred to this expenditure reduction and he said it was actually only $68
million.
Minister, can you confirm that was the right numbers, what the Auditor General
had referenced? Also, my question to you was: What is your plan, and will you
roll that out in your fall fiscal update? What is your plan for deficit
reduction?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know
the Member is excited to get our fall fiscal update. I say to him, he's going to
have to wait just a few more days because the middle of November is fast
approaching.
Mr.
Speaker, we have made great strides in reducing the province's fiscal deficit.
From the $2.7 billion that the Member opposite left this province – and I might
remind him, they projected $1.1 billion, Mr. Speaker. They continued to have the
people of the province believe that was the number. They went through the
campaign promising additional spending, promising schools. Leading people to
believe, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal situation of the province wasn't as bad as
it was.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we're being honest with the people of the province; we were from
the very beginning. That the fiscal situation of the province was very real, and
we've taken measures to address that fiscal situation, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
We've gotten the deficit down
to $1 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, shame on us
for building schools for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, this government
has been in power now for two years. It is their mandate to manage the affairs
of the province. The Auditor General also indicated the government's fiscal plan
up to 2022-2023 is forecasting a reduced expenditure by just 2.3 per cent.
Minister, is that statement correct? Because if you're looking for a balanced
approach, you've certainly taxed people to no end but you've done nothing to
reduce expenditures, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite
ironic for a gentleman that left the province with a $2.7 billion deficit and
didn't tell anybody in the public and didn't tell the people in our party, that
the deficit, the fiscal crisis the province was facing, can stand there and say
we've put in measures that were difficult on people, as though it's a story of –
it's a tale of two stories, I say, Mr. Speaker.
They led
the people of the province, even throughout the general election of 2015, to
think that our fiscal situation was solid. Not shame on you for building
schools, shame on you for promising what you couldn't deliver because he knew,
or he ought to have known the fiscal situation the province was in and didn't
tell anybody. We were honest right from the start and told people the situation
the province was in.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Maybe
the minister was too distracted in 2015 to watch what was happening, because we
were the only party that campaigned on cost reduction and tax increases because
it had to be done for the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
October 25, very recently, the minister himself stated that tax increases are
not the answer to the spending problem. Even though that's the only choice the
government has made in two years is to tax, tax and tax.
I ask
the minister: If you're looking for that balanced approach and you saying you're
going to find it, and you're so concerned about the future, why did you, your
government, introduce 300 new taxes and fees and burden Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, why
the difficult decisions were made in the 2016 budget that were made, because he
led the people of the province to believe the fiscal deficit was $1.1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, when this party took government we were borrowing on average $4.38
million a day to deal with the fiscal deficit that you wouldn't tell the people
the truth about.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that the bond-rating agencies and the lending agencies
had told this government to take very quick and very decisive action to correct
the fiscal crisis generated by that side of the House, and that's what we did.
The
reality, Mr. Speaker, is nobody wants those tax increases and as we can afford
to reduce those and eliminate them, we will.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister talks about rapid and quick action. Mr. Speaker, the only thing they've
done for two years is put taxes and fees on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
like has never been done before in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
They've taken no action to
adjust their expenditures, and that's the side of the balance sheet that the
minister is forgetting.
When
will you address those taxes and fees that you burdened on the people in
2016-2017? Those same taxes and fees that are driving people from our province
like we haven't seen in decades, that are burdening Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians like we haven't seen before – the same taxes and fees that has put
our economy into a spin that's shocked Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.
I ask
the minister: When are you going to do that? When are you going to lift that tax
burden?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to
borrow a line from An Officer and A
Gentleman: You can't handle the truth.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality here is we'd reduced the gas tax already. It's due for
another reduction December 1. We have legislation in place to eliminate the
levy. We've reduced the size of the core public service by over 600 positions.
We have reduced the deficit from $2.7 billion down to less than $1 billion and
we will continue –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members, the temperature is getting up a little bit. Let's just keep it
down. I want to hear only from the identified MHA, please.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon.
the minister is, I don't think, good with finance and not good with movies. That
wasn't the movie he actually quoted. He quoted the wrong movie.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So he needs to do some work
on movies, but I'd suggest he give up the movies and start working on the
finances of the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, will the
minister acknowledge that the Auditor General's recent findings that to reach
the government's six-year target, taxes and fees in Newfoundland and Labrador
would have to increase on an average of 28 per cent from where it is today to
reach the target and revenue increases of $1.1 billion that they have identified
for 2022-2023?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the numbers that
the Auditor General used is no surprise to anybody. We've been very transparent
about the fiscal situation the province is in. We are facing challenging times,
Mr. Speaker, and we have challenging times ahead, but what I will say is that
we've been working very hard.
I have
indicated very clearly that we have no interest in digging any deeper into the
taxpayers' pockets in this province, but we do have to find savings. We have
been finding those savings, including a reduction from $2.7 billion in projected
deficit down to less than a billion dollars this year. We are finding those
savings. But I ask the Member opposite: Without digging any deeper into the
taxpayers' pockets, where do you want us to cut to find the savings?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, it is their
fiscal plan; their names are on the door that is running government for the past
24 months. It is their obligation to tell the people of the province what
they're going to do. It is about them and their provincial plan.
Mr.
Speaker, $1.1 billion increase in revenues by 2022-2023. That is what the
Auditor General said; it's in his report. Now, can the minister tell us where is
that coming from, or is the Auditor General correct and those numbers are not
accurate? Simple question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As costs
increase in the province, which they do, the cost of operating your home, the
cost of operating buildings, the cost of building new buildings – as those
increase, obviously there is going to be costs.
Mr.
Speaker, we have taken a very responsible approach to reducing and maintaining
costs in this province. I ask the Member opposite again, because if we are going
to really deal with the fiscal situation of this province without digging any
deeper in the taxpayers' pockets, where does he believe that we should cut?
I put an
invitation out to the Leader of the Opposition, months ago, and to the
Opposition House Leader – months ago: My office door is open; if you have
answers, bring them to me. But I hope the answers are better than the fiscal
restraint that Muskrat Falls has put on the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I will say to
the Minister of Finance of the decision they made on the middle school on the
Southern Shore, I asked him to meet with the parents of the Southern Shore and
meet with me on that, which is a financial mess, and he would not. So don't tell
me your door is open, Sir, when it is not open to the people of the Ferryland
district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
How dare you say that?
Mr.
Speaker, in 2016 the Liberals imposed more than 300 taxes and fee hikes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
First
and final warning, I only want to hear from the Member identified.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2016
the Liberals imposed more than 300 taxes and fee hikes. And almost all of the
300 remain in place today in 2017.
Has the
minister considered that the failed budget of 2016 and 2017 is a large part of
the reason that thousands of jobs are disappearing across our province and
people are leaving?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I
will provide the truth for the Member opposite. I am not the Minister of
Transportation and Works, nor am I the minister responsible for Education. I
don't make the decision on the decision on the building of schools, but to
answer the question that the Member put forward, Mr. Speaker, we are reducing
taxes. We've reduced the gas tax; we've eliminated the book tax. We are
continuing to focus on the levy which is legislated to be removed in 2019. We'll
continue on doing that.
I'll ask
the Member again, without those increases we would have faced a downgrade in our
borrowing ability. The lending agencies were threatening not to lend money. What
would you have done?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
What would you have done to
fix the fiscal crisis you left?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
minister just admitted he wouldn't meet with the parents group from the Southern
Shore concerning the middle school when they felt the financial investment
wasn't the right one. Apparently that's not his concern, that's with some other
minister, but I thought he was the Minister of Finance.
Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Natural Resources confirm the Auditor General's
finding that almost 27 per cent of the growth the province is forecasting in
2022-2023 is expected from oil while the remaining 73 per cent is expected to
come from other sources, including expected profits from Muskrat Falls?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, we know who
torpedoed the finances of this province and we also know what torpedoed the
finances of this project. It was Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, to the question the minister opposite asked: Oil and gas development is
continuing in this province. I'm sure Members opposite are equally as determined
to ensure that our offshore oil and gas continues its development.
We have
good success in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. We're hoping for continued success in
the Flemish Pass, Mr. Speaker, as well as some of the new other basins. There
are over 20 basins and 350 leads and prospects – 350 leads and prospects – in
this province in the oil and gas industry.
It is
with great anticipation, Mr. Speaker, and hope that we will drive the 23 per
cent of growth in this province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister, based on her answer there: Why the contradiction of
Muskrat Falls?
The AG
has it in his report. Why did you include expected profit from Muskrat Falls in
your revenue forecasts for 2022-2023 while you criticized the project publicly?
The
Premier stated there's nowhere to sell the surplus power, yet for their fiscal
plan for 2022-2023, they're including the sale of excess energy to get them
through revenue generation over that six-year period.
You
can't have it both ways, which is it? Is the AG right or are you right?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I get
the opportunity to actually stand and address this question. The Member opposite
should know full well why the profits are at Muskrat Falls because they put in
legislation that will restrict people, ratepayers of this province to have any
option except pay the exorbitant costs they put in place. That is the only thing
that generates profits from Muskrat Falls, is legislation that says there's
almost a 9 per cent rate of return on whatever the cost is.
They
told people in this province it would not go up, that there would not be cost
overruns. They also made sure the people in this province would have to pay for
whatever the cost is. They are the ones that made those decisions and they
should be ashamed of them today. To suggest the Tory tax on electricity, it is
the largest tax in the history of this province and they are responsible for it
and they know it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier should be ashamed that he can't give insight into what the
AG has said, whether he is correct or not. It's a very simple question. In their
fiscal plan for '22-'23, they're estimating a $1.1 billion revenue increase
based on a number of factors. One of those factors is Muskrat Falls and the sale
of excess energy.
So if
you don't support the project and there's nowhere to sell the energy, how are
you using it in saying that's going to be used to give you increased revenue for
'22-'23 in your six-year plan? How is it, Premier? Tell us.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
I'm curious, Mr. Speaker,
even just standing here and addressing this, because the very Member opposite,
when we were asking to have the sale of surplus power to go ahead to reduce
rates in our province, they refused to do that. They refused to do it.
It
wasn't until the election, with the former Minister of Natural Resources during
a debate with VOCM, made the announcement that they would accept the policy we
had put forward, Mr. Speaker. That was driven by those of us on this side so we
could help support ratepayers.
Mr.
Speaker, there is no question about it. They were just talking about a mid-year
update. Do you know one former premier who refused to put a mid-year update out?
Who was that former premier, Mr. Speaker? It was the Leader of the Opposition in
2015. He would not put out a mid-year update in 2015 for the first time in
history.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Why was there no dialogue between the communities of Bell Island
and Fogo – Change Islands when they made the devastating changes to the ferry
service last week?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the opportunity to address this ongoing issue.
Mr.
Speaker, one thing we're not going to do as a government is accept
responsibility for the blunders of the previous administration; $100 million for
two ferries that have not been successful in this province.
Talk
about dialogue, on Thursday morning, Mr. Speaker, as we were getting ready to
make the unfortunate changes that we have to make because of their
mismanagement, I contacted the Member opposite and I explained the changes to
him. We talked about it, the fact that here's where we are.
I talked
to the Mayor of Bell Island on the weekend. I talked to the Mayor of Bell Island
again this morning. My staff worked all weekend, with a dialogue of how we can
make this work, and we've come to a solution, Mr. Speaker, that best respects
the people using the service and the taxpayers of the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Well, I have to correct the
minister there because he talks about a blunder. That's why there are 100 people
standing on the ramp of a ferry now, and that's not a blunder. They want to keep
a ferry that's reliable. That's why it's been effective for them.
I also
want to note to the minister, he seems to forget the email I sent him only
Friday giving him a number of suggestions, telling him that what was suggested
would not be acceptable and would not work for the people travelling to and from
Bell Island, and even for Fogo Island. The dialogue only happened after a
protest. So you had no open dialogue with the people of either one of these
communities.
Why
won't your government entertain other options to accommodate both of these
communities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the hon. Member opposite that the wharf they're stood on is the one you forgot
to build.
Mr.
Speaker, if you look at the solutions we put forward, the reality here is, what
we're suggesting is what can be in place as early as tomorrow is 18 trips. Today
we will have 16 trips starting at 5:25 a.m. We're offering 18 trips starting
tomorrow morning at 5 a.m.
The
options put forward also have to be considered for what it's going to cost us as
a province. We subsidize ferries in this province today to a tune of $72
million. The Bell Island run alone is subsidized by the taxpayers of this
province to the tune of $14 million a year, Mr. Speaker. The reality here is we
have a couple of options. One would cost the taxpayers of this province $56,000
and one $200,000.
Mr.
Speaker, we're going to use the $56,000 option because it's the most respect we
can pay to the taxpayers of the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I take exception
to them making fun of the travelling people to and from Bell Island. We had
dialysis patients this morning, six of them could not get to their treatments
because the elevator is not working on the
Flanders and their idiotic policy – and I call it an idiotic policy –
refusing to let people who have a disability get on that ferry because the
elevator is not working.
The
second thing; eight patients have to come over for cancer treatments and not
being able to get there, and making this as a funny joke. This is not a funny
joke. The 300 workers who everyday come over, to provide services to people in
Newfoundland and Labrador, are not given that opportunity.
I ask
the minister one more time: Will you be engaged to come up with an immediate
solution that works for both of these communities?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, we've been
engaged all weekend. We've been engaged since we ran into the problems again
with the Veteran. This morning there
were some medical issues on the island and we do have an elevator issue on the
boat.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is we have air service in place for people that need to get
to emergency medical transportation. Just 10 questions ago, we had the Leader of
the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader stood up talking about: What are
you going to cut? What are you going to cut? We haven't cut enough.
We've
proposed a solution to the residents of Bell Island that will give them 18 runs
tomorrow. When we looked at the issue we're facing here, the reason for two
vessels on the Bell Island run is the reality that if something happens, we need
the second vessel in Bell Island. Mr. Speaker, that's where we are today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
And I go back to my initial
question; you didn't have dialogue. What you offered is not workable to the
people of Bell Island.
They
came back with a solution that says you cannot get 400 people off Bell Island in
a timely fashion to get to work or get to their medical appointments in that
time frame using the Beaumont Hamel.
They gave you a simple solution: Go back to what we had prior to the
Legionnaire arriving. That would have
been conducive to everybody.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Fogo would have been happy,
Change Islands would have been happy and so would have been the people of Bell
Island, but you denied that.
Why will
you not now entertain the solution that the ferry users committee have come up
with and the dialogue that they've had back and forth?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
The hon.
Member opposite was an open-line show this morning and stated that there's a 30
per cent difference in the size of vehicle capacity from the
Flanders to the
Beaumont Hamel. I'd correct his math on that because, Mr. Speaker,
the Flanders handles 36 vehicles and
the Beaumont Hamel 33.
The
solution that we've offered to make up for that capacity, Mr. Speaker is a 5
a.m. run. This morning we started at 5:25. Under the two-vessel schedule that we
have proposed, there would be a vessel starting tomorrow morning at 5 a.m. for a
total of 18 runs.
It's
reasonable. It's the most cost-effective method that we can get to where we need
to be. We realize the people of Bell Island need this service. We're committed
to giving them the service. That's why we've offered the two vessels, Mr.
Speaker. We will work with the people to make sure that we get the best service
possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The solution that was offered
would be no more costly to the department; the crews are already in play. It
would be conducive to the needs of the working public and the medical needs of
the people travelling, yet you would not even entertain the conversation. You
would not even give the courtesy to the communities involved to say: Why don't
you engage the citizens?
You're
an open and transparent government over there; I've been hearing that for the
last 24 months. Now, all of a sudden, you can't engage two communities to come
up with a solution – the people who use the services every day.
Again, I
ask: Will you engage the communities and come up with a solution that's
acceptable for them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if
the Member opposite heard what I said earlier. I've spoken to the mayor on two
occasions since Thursday. I'm meeting with the mayor again later this afternoon.
We've been consulting as a department all weekend long.
The
Member opposite, who was a former minister of this very department, stands up
and asks questions. Mr. Speaker, he sat in the very chair I sit in. The
Beaumont Hamel is a swing vessel. So
what happens, when a swing vessel comes into operation, she takes the schedule
of the vessel she's replacing. Those are contractual arrangements.
Mr.
Speaker, no wonder we're in the mess we're in when it comes to some of the
ferries around this province when the former minister didn't even understand the
system when he was there. It's astonishing that he stands up here today and
offers suggestions that he knows are not possible.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's the
same minister who didn't know where the Crown Lands department was going to move
to in Corner Brook and he's lecturing me about what goes on in the ferry
services. I've travelled that for years and was the minister responsible.
I ask
again: Are you going to entertain a possible solution that will be put forward
by the ferry users committee? You haven't had any dialogue with the people in
Fogo-Change Islands; I know that for a fact because I have had dialogue with
people there.
I know
you have a meeting coming up in the next hour or so. Are you going to entertain
a possible solution to address this issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, we're always open to entertaining solutions to issues, but the
reality is we have to also make sure that we're doing it in the best interest of
the taxpayers of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, we spent more money this year on ferries than we did on our roads
capital program. Mr. Speaker, that's the legacy of the previous administration.
They bought these two new ferries with one-year warranties – one-year
warranties. It's only because of the former minister of Transportation that we
managed to get a two-year warranty on the
Veteran but we still have a one-year warranty on the
Legionnaire because of
the deal they negotiated.
We are
looking at tariffs – do you know what they negotiated? They had tariffs. We had
to go to Ottawa and get the tariffs relieved, Mr. Speaker. So that's how good
they were with ferries.
Again, I
remind them they built a ferry and forget the wharf.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Section
17.1(4) of the Energy
Corporation Act states: Nalcor and all subsidiaries shall report to the
minister every six months on their procurement activities and shall include a
summary of contracts entered into and the identities of suppliers.
I ask
the Premier: Were these regular reports received? If so, was information on
embedded contractors provided?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member opposite knows, the legislation was brought in by the former
administration and we are equally concerned on this side of the House, as people
are throughout the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the impacts
of this Muskrat Falls Project.
We
received regular and multiple reports to the Oversight Committee and to the
department on contracts, on what's happening with Muskrat Falls, what's
happening with Nalcor, as well as what's happening with the entire project.
Mr.
Speaker, if she has a specific question on a specific contract, I'd be happy to
provide it for her.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I had a very
specific question: Was information on embedded contractors provided; were
identities of the suppliers included, as demanded by the legislation? Very clear
question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, the level of
detail that the Member opposite is asking on embedded contractors, as the Member
opposite knows and as everyone in this House knows, and perhaps everyone in the
province will know, in 2012 and 2013 when sanction occurred with Muskrat Falls
there was a decision taken by the former administration to do an integrated
project model and that integrated project model meant that Nalcor became the
lead on the project development with SNC-Lavalin, so they embedded the
SNC-Lavalin people. That occurred back in 2012-2013.
If the
question is do we have the individual names of the individuals on these embedded
contracts, I'm sure we would have them on a conglomerate list but not an
individual list.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I will make it
very clear again: The legislation says that Nalcor and all subsidiaries will
report on their procurement activities and shall include a summary of contracts
entered into and the identities of suppliers. An individual embedded contract is
a supplier of a service and should be identified.
Have
they demanded that identification and, if so, why is it not made public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The key
word there is a summary. We do also have the identities of contracts that are
made to Nalcor and then onwards to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
But these contracts are held by Nalcor. They are negotiated by Nalcor. Some of
the other requirements under the act are that Nalcor does ensure the protection
of privacy of the contracts.
Mr.
Speaker, we do have the summary. We have identified the contracts, as such. I
think what the Member is asking is do we have the individual names of the people
who are the embedded contractors. To that, I would refer to Nalcor who is the
project manager and the lead on this project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, the legislation
makes it very clear that Nalcor is supposed to do what I've now quoted twice.
The legislation also makes it clear that the minister is supposed to table those
reports that would include all of this information.
Why
hasn't the minister tabled those reports?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
That's a very good question.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll take it under advisement and look at what more reports the Member
opposite is asking. We table a tremendous number of reports.
Mr.
Speaker, you can go on the website for Nalcor. You can go on the website for
Natural Resources. You can go on the website for the Oversite Committee. There
are literally dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reports. I will seek to ensure
the report she is requesting is on that.
I cannot
speak to it today, Mr. Speaker, but I am assured there are so many reports
available to the public, that those reports are made available.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Vital
Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I give
notice of the following motion. The Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi to
move:
WHEREAS
the province's serious financial situation has caused government to predict a
decline in program expenses of 0.85 per cent or $376 million over the next five
years, which could result in tens of millions of dollars kept from health care
each year; and
WHEREAS
people are worried their health care system won't be there for them when they
need it; and
WHEREAS
this level of cost reduction should not proceed without a comprehensive health
sector review, and a plan that will avoid arbitrary, harmful cuts in services;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has called for an independent,
expert review of the province's health care facilities and services based on
wide consultation in the health sector; and
WHEREAS
the NLMA says the review should be tasked with telling government how to
reconfigure the health care system to be smarter, less costly, high quality, and
focused on patient care and prevention; and
WHEREAS
the people of the province expect the House of Assembly to work together on this
issue;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that government undertake an independent, external
review of health care, to be conducted by an eminent expert recognized in the
field of health care delivery, with a goal of maintaining quality health care
into the future.
This is
seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, this will be the private Member's motion we'll bring forward on
November 8.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand today and present the petition that has been provided me by
members of the deaf and hard of hearing community and by the Churchill family.
The petitions, Mr. Speaker, have been signed by thousands of people.
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
deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland
and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education
because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and
WHEREAS
from 1964 to 2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a
full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf
and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only
a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of
hearing children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate complete and thorough
assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a
committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of
deaf and hard of hearing education and to accept the recommendations of these
experts, and in the interim, take measures to honour the support commitments
made to all current and future students upon closure of the School for the Deaf
in 2010, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are provided with
access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates as well as access
to sign language.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we are learning that the children who are deaf and hard of hearing in
our schools right now, who are there as part of the inclusion program, are not
having their needs met. They need more instruction time with teachers trained to
teach the deaf. They need full-time student assistants trained to work with deaf
and hard of hearing students. They need more access to sign language, whether or
not they have cochlear implants. This is the internationally recognized language
of deaf people. They need more interpretation in the classroom. They need what
was promised in 2010, and that is if they went into the regular school system
they would have all the services that they would have had in the School for the
Deaf; and Mr. Speaker, they are not getting those services.
The
resources in our schools are currently inadequate for deaf and hard of hearing
students. We have one child here in the Assembly today. There are over 300
children out there in the system and we are hearing from their parents, their
needs are not being met.
I look
forward to speaking to this further as time goes on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development on a point of order.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave
of the House of Assembly, of my colleagues, to allow me to respond to this
petition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the hon. minister have
leave to respond to the petition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'd be happy to hear the
minister (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, you have leave.
Please
proceed.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree
with the Member, that it is troubling, the circumstances under which the former
School for the Deaf was closed by the previous administration with relatively
little consultation with the deaf and hard of hearing community. There is no
question about that.
There
are a variety of different services. I won't go through it because Members
should be aware. There are a variety of services that are provided in schools
for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. As we have said, since my
colleagues and I sat on the other side of the House of Assembly in Opposition,
we have said the inclusive education model that was imposed upon the education
system in this province has not been working as it was intended. It has been
ineffective, and that is why there is an entire chapter in the Premier's Task
Force report addressing the issue of inclusive education and advocating for
significant overhaul of the special education services that are provided to
students in schools.
We have
been working since July on the recommendations to operationalize them to ensure
we make the necessary improvements to the system so that all children,
regardless of their particular circumstance, get the level of education, the
quality of services they are entitled to. That is what we are going to do in our
education action plan, which will be announced with the budget in the spring.
So we
are committed to fixing that model. We know there are shortcomings. We have said
that all along.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
there has been an identified lack of mental health services in the province's
K-12 school system; and
WHEREAS
this lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K-12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had an opportunity to speak to this in the past and it goes back
to a bigger issue that we have here. The issue is we need to be able to support
our students in every aspect of their education. As my colleague here had noted,
there are many gaps in the services that we need to provide, particularly in
special supportive services. This is another particular one.
It has
been identified by the All-Party Committee that if we do not address in the
early stages of mental health interventions and support services, particularly
in our school system, then it leads to more aggressive, more long-term impacts
and it has a detrimental effect on that individual being able to be productive
in society and being able to reach their full potential.
We've
talked about it. We've talked to school councillors and the psychologists. We've
talked to the administration about the supports that are needed around mental
health. There's a multitude of approaches that need to be done. One is about
education and the full-fledged education – we've started education with our
police forces, and rightfully so, so they can identify issues in young people or
any other citizen when there may be an altercation to realize there's a mental
health issue and there's a different way of approaching that than you would just
from a criminal point of view.
We've
also looked at it from a training point of view. Teachers, on a daily basis, try
to get better understanding of how to identify mental health issues within the
school system, how to address those, but there's a bigger picture here of also
co-operating with outside entities – those agencies and volunteer groups that
have a specialized talent to be able to address some of these particular issues
and work with them.
This is
a holistic approach here to identifying how we best not only resource, but deal
with the issues of mental health, particularly in the younger stages of a
person's development. We need to be able to be preventative. It's no good at the
end of the day being total intervention when we didn't do our preventative stuff
upfront.
We can
save millions of dollars but outside of the cost here, this is about quality of
life. It's about the quality for the families who deal with children who may
have some mental health issues. It has to do with our educators. It has to do
with the other students that are in that environment. It has to do with the
holistic approach here within those communities.
That's
why we need to look at the type of resources we do. We've called for it before;
we call for it again. We need a summit on inclusive education that includes
everything from mental health to people who need particular services, deaf or
hard-of hearing, every other child that needs services within our school system.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
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
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the Eastern School District's 1.6-kilometre zone and, therefore, do not
quality for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this issue is not a new issue. As we know, it's been talked about
probably on a regular basis through media outlets. A lot of my colleagues, and
I'm sure the Members across, have dealt with this in their individual districts.
It is a
big issue. It's one that causes a lot of stress to a lot of parents, the fact
that their children have to walk to school. I know the district will say it's
not a walk zone, but if you don't have any other means it is a walk zone.
Unfortunately, the default factor falls into a walk zone.
The
policy has been around for 40 or 50 years. Ironically, the current Minister of
Education, when he was on this side of the House, up until whatever happened in
November 30, 2015, he was the biggest champion against this policy. It's not
concocted; you can go find this in any social media. He was the biggest champion
against this policy. December 1, all of a sudden, he supports this policy.
In
recent media outlets, he tells people that it's the board's policy. It's not
his, it's not the governments, it is the boards. But I'll remind him again, it
is the government policy. The board followed the Department of Education's
policies. This is directed by the provincial government to the board. They
follow the rules.
Playing
with words and playing with children's safety is something that I, as an MHA,
and a parent and a citizen of Conception Bay South – and I want to assure my
colleagues, I cannot look at any parent in the face straight and give him a
straight answer to tell them that it's fine for their children to walk 1.6
kilometres in four lanes of traffic, putting their children at risk. I cannot do
it, not only as an MHA, like I said, as a person, as a parent.
I think
it's high time for this provincial government to take a strong, serious look at
this 1.6-kilometre policy because everyone I've spoken to says it doesn't make
sense. I can't see, for the life of me – and the current Minister of Education,
it didn't make sense to him until November 30, 2015. Maybe he can come around
again and make sense to it in 2017.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
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 removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books, which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the
other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage
reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of its own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I hear Members
opposite cackling and cackling and calling me honey. Gerry, honey, one of them
said, that tax is already gone.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's disrespectful.
MS. ROGERS:
Somewhat disrespectful, but
let me continue on, Mr. Speaker,
I know
that the book tax will be changed come January 1. I know that, but I'm
deliberately continuing to present the petitions that have been signed by the
people of this province about how inappropriate the book tax has been.
This
government, although they may be changing the legislation, were the ones who
instituted it. They were the ones who removed the provincial rebate. They were
the ones who put those extra taxes on books that hurt independent book sellers,
publishers and students in this province. I know exactly what I'm doing, Mr.
Speaker, by standing up and speaking to this petition.
Not only
did this government do it, but the people of the province have pushed back and
it's the people of the province who have gotten this legislation changed. It's
the activism of the people of this province who persisted and persisted. We have
thousands of signatures by people from all over the province about what this
government has done by removing the rebate on the provincial tax on books.
The
people of the province are not to be fooled. They know this government did it
and that the reason the legislation is being changed is because of their
activism.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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 Bell Island ferry provides a vital transportation link; and
WHEREAS
the Bell Island ferry is only eight minutes from port at any given time; and
WHEREAS
government's recently implemented policy related to mandatory exiting of
vehicles will put people at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of
having to evacuate the vehicle due to an emergency; and
WHEREAS
Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exit their vehicles
during this commute;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to conduct a full and thorough risk assessment to
clearly identify all risks and liabilities associated with such a policy
decision, after which public release any and all results and details of review.
And as
in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, it's very easy to flippantly say we're going to change the policy
to make it sound like getting out of your vehicle on a ferry is much safer when
you haven't analyzed. You're not out in the North Atlantic, 500 miles from port.
You're not in an enclosed vessel. You're not dealing with people who may have
oxygen tanks and an attendant with them and at a higher risk – the Medical
Association will tell you this, I've had discussions – repetition with a heavy
alignment puts people at a higher risk of that alignment being chronic.
I had to
ask them to explain that to me. They said if someone has a major heart
alignment, maybe getting up over the stairs once may not be that traumatic, but
if you're doing it two and three and four times a day, and two and three and
four times a week, that will have an impact on it.
People
who are going for dialysis, the impact that would have; people who've just came
from hours of chemotherapy having to do it; people who've been sedated in day
surgery now have to come back and are still in basically almost a sedated state
trying to get up and those things; people who have Parkinson's disease having to
walk the length of a ferry, then get in an elevator to go up and are still –
when you look at it – no closer to the muster station for evacuation.
Outside
of all that; that's why any policy we change anywhere in government that is
related to safety, where safety is our argument, you always do a risk
assessment. The risk assessment gives you an indication, are we increasing the
risk of injury or decreasing it by bringing in this policy? This wasn't done. It
was asked.
When I
was minister they came in and wanted to implement the policy and I said not a
problem, do a full risk assessment. If the evidence proves it's safer for these
people, particularly those who have mobility issues and medical issues to get
out – in the rare case, the non-existent case, after a million trips we've never
evacuated the ferry – then I will go along and I will explain it to people and
say this is the risk. That hasn't been done. We've seen it already. We've seen
the impact.
I've let
the minister know. I've made it clear to him there are liable suits coming,
because I can guarantee you somebody will get injured because these vessels, for
that period of time, are not a safety risk for those people there. It is much
more of a safety risk having to get out and try to get somewhere else. In the
rare case that anything would happen, the time frame of 20 minutes to evacuate,
it's possible to get that person with supports that are already in place.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again. It's another issue about how the ferry
service and the people there are not being serviced.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders
of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, Bill 19, and I further move
that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act, Bill 19, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,” carried.
(Bill 19)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 19)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5,
second reading of Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to stand in this hon. House today to talk to Bill 15, An Act to Amend the
Securities Act.
The
Securities Act governs all those who
are involved in the securities market in our province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Bill 15, An Act To
Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 15 entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 15)
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
stand in this hon. House today to talk to Bill 15, An Act to Amend the
Securities Act. The Securities Act
governs all those who are involved in the securities market in our province.
A security is an investment such as shares traded on the
stock exchange or investment products sold to our residents. For those wishing
to trade in securities, the act provides the rule to be registered in the
province, as well as the rules for raising capital.
Anyone who wants to trade in securities, provide advice or
manage portfolios or investments has to be licensed under the act. This act
includes investment advisors, stock brokers and mutual fund advisors. The act
also provides the authority to the
superintendent of securities in Services NL to licence and take action
against those who are in contravention of the act.
Mr.
Speaker, last November, our government released
The Way Forward roadmap for our
province. It includes a number of actions designed to achieve a more efficient
public sector, a stronger economic foundation, better services and better
outcomes to promote a healthy and prosperous province.
As part
of this vision, we have placed a great emphasis on enhancing consumer
protection. The Way Forward, along
with the mandate letter, specifically commits to implementing a series of new
consumer protection measures to protect consumers against fraud or bad business
practices.
The
amendment we are introducing to the
Securities Act is to ensure protection for consumers in our province against
securities fraud. The amendment will change the maximum period of imprisonment
from a term of not more than five years, to a term of not more than five years
less a day. The change is a correction from a previous amendment made in 2010.
At that time, amendments were meant to align penalties with other jurisdictions;
however, most other jurisdictions use the wording: Not more than five years less
a day.
Mr.
Speaker, cases under the Securities Act
are often complex. Charges under the
Securities Act are considered summary offence charges, governed by the
Provincial
Offences Act. Summary offence charges are not meant to reach the
level of trial by jury.
Under
the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms a person charged with an offence has the right to the benefit of
trial by jury where the maximum punishment of the offence is imprisonment for
five years or more or more severe punishment. These changes we are introducing
to the act are necessary because the discrepancy risks a potential challenge
under the Charter for any charges brought forward by the Financial Services
Regulation Division, unless a trial by jury is provided. It will help ensure
that when prosecutions are unsuccessful, they can't be overturned on a
constitutional challenge.
In the
recent case of R. v. Peers in Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
legislation with penalties of five years less a day without a jury trial is
complaint with the Charter and is in keeping with the intent of avoiding jury
trials for complex security prosecutions. This change will bring Newfoundland
and Labrador in line with other jurisdictions across Canada, as originally
intended.
It is
important, Mr. Speaker, that we continuously review legislation to ensure it is
as effective as it can be for the residents of our province. In this case, it is
important that we strive to ensure the greatest consumer protection possible for
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here today as we start off our new Assembly and the
introduction of legislation. I understand, with the few briefings that we've had
so far, there's going to be a fine lot of legislation and this is the start
today for us to get into what we usually do in the fall sittings is to speak to
the different legislation that's available and some changes that need to be
made.
Sometimes when you look at legislation, something happens in other parts of the
country or in other parts of the world or anything else that makes officials in
our departments to say, oh, we should have a look at what's happening in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In this
case today, this Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Securities Act, is exactly what
happened. Back in February of 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was doing a
ruling with R. v. Peers. Under that ruling, our Department of Service NL had a
look and said what we are going to do, just look at this ruling and see what
effects it would have on Newfoundland and Labrador. While they looked at that
piece of legislation, they realized that there was a fault in our own
legislation. The fault being basically that less a day is important when it
comes to securities and trials with people with security fraud.
They
looked at this and said that because security frauds and security, when it goes
to court, are very complex, they're complex issues and sometimes it's important
that it's done through trial by judge only. I guess in some cases, and it's not
to degrade anybody that goes on a jury or anything like that, but sometimes you
really almost need the expertise to be able to understand the complexity of what
you're ruling on.
Under
the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, in order for it not to be considered a
jury trial then it has to say five years less a day. In our legislation that we
had, it didn't have that stated, and it was very important. It will tell you
what the good people in the public service are doing. This is very good that we
had officials over in the Department of Service NL to really go and have a look
at the legislation we have in place to make sure that down the road, something
didn't happen, that it could be a security fraud and a person could say five
years.
By just
saying the words “five years,” it could go to the Supreme Court of Canada and
that could have been thrown out of court because it didn't say – under five
years it doesn't have to have a jury trial. So that was the reason why we have
to put those words in to make sure that five years less a day, then this has to
be done by judge only.
That's
what we're changing here today, to make sure that we, along with – and the
minister also stated that most provinces in Canada already have this in their
legislation. We didn't, so it's important that we do put it in here today to
make sure that we follow the trial.
Again,
when you're talking securities and you're talking financial securities and it
could be some kind of fraud against – and it is a part of consumer protection
also. We want to make sure that the expertise is there in the room to be able to
give the people who are going to make the decision, whether it's a fraud or not,
that expertise. It's better that we have it that it's not a jury trial, that
it's done by the judge alone.
Basically, it's a change to the legislation. It's a change that puts us in line
with other jurisdictions right across Canada. It's important that we do have
people in our public service that really does pick up on this stuff and make
sure that we're doing things properly. We will be supporting this act.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the Member for Cape St. Francis supporting us on this initiative.
Hopefully all of his colleagues on the opposite side of the House will be as
well. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a big thank you for the opportunity to stand in
this hon. House to speak to Bill 15, the bill to amend the
Securities Act.
Consumer
protection is critically important in our society today. It seems that
everywhere you turn these days, especially on the Internet, there are new
investment opportunities that claim to be a sure thing. Of course, most of us
know that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is and we are
careful enough to avoid getting fooled.
Even
with legitimate investment opportunities, there are people who may try to take
advantage of trusting customers. That's why there is a need for our government
to provide oversight or need for a government to provide oversight and
regulation to those who sell securities in our province.
As the
minister so eloquently put in her statements before – I won't reiterate all
those but I'm going to continue on to highlight some of the things that we're
going to be making some slight changes here – the Financial Services Regulation
Division of Service NL does just that, Mr. Speaker. Individuals who provide
investment advice and sell securities like mutual funds, stocks and bonds are
required to be registered under the
Securities Act.
The
superintendent of securities is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council
to administer and enforce the act and its regulations. Staff in this division
also have investigative powers under the act and they are tasked with
identifying illegal activity or unprofessional conduct within the industry.
Mr.
Speaker, the investigators in this division do excellent work each and every day
to ensure those who trade in securities in our province do so within the bounds
of the law. When these investigators have reasonable grounds to suspect illegal
or unprofessional activity, charges can be laid and the subsequent penalties can
be severe.
As
written in the legislation today, those who contravene the
Securities Act can be subject to a fine of up to $5 million and up
to five years in prison; but if those penalties are to face a successful
challenge under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, the efforts of our security investigators will be
wasted. If such a challenge should occur, the efforts we have taken to protect
the consumer of our province from securities fraud will also be wasted.
Today,
we had the opportunity to correct an oversight of the past so that our customers
remain protected. I urge all of my colleagues in this hon. House to stand behind
our province and the consumers to support these amendments.
I will
highlight the main crux of the change is just simply a wording change. The bill
would amend the Securities Act to
correct the maximum period of imprisonment under subsections 122(1) and 122(4)
from the term of not more than five years to a term of not more than five years
less a day.
That's
the crux of the change and I'd like all my colleagues in this hon. House to
stand with us and support this housecleaning initiative to add some additional
clarity to the debate.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand today and support Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Securities Act. As
we say in common parlance, it's a no-brainer that we do this. I think it's been
pointed out by the minister and by her colleague on the government side that the
bill is correcting an omission in the original bill. That always puts a little
red flag up for me when I hear that kind of thing.
We've
had a number of times here in this House where we've had a bill trying to
correct another bill. So I think it's a bit of a warning to us that we need to
always have adequate time to look at legislation that is coming to the floor.
Even when it's a piece of housekeeping legislation, the language is so
important. Just the omission of one word or one phrase can have a real impact,
as is the case with this bill, because the bill is adding the words, just three
little words: less a day; five years less a day. It may seem like a small
omission, but in actual fact it's a major omission because that difference of
less a day of five years means a difference in how a person who has been accused
under the Securities Act, how they're
going to tried. I think it's extremely important.
When you
get to sitting in front of a jury, it's a different reality than having a
judgement being made by a judge who has to sit and go through every word of what
has been presented in a trial and come up with a judgement. I'm not saying
juries don't think things through carefully, I'm sure they do, but it is a very
different dynamic. I think it's really important that something like this, as
somebody who has been charged under the
Securities Act, that something like this is so important. That having a
judge very closely and deliberately weigh every word that's been presented to
him or her, I think will make for a surer type of judgement. I'm sure that's the
reason for wanting to keep these offences under five years, so that it's not
just a jury decision. That it's a decision by a judge.
I
understand there was an Alberta court case R. v. Peers, which involved a person
asking for a jury trial when changed with securities fraud. He claimed he was
entitled to a trial by jury under the law. As the legislation stipulated, the
maximum jail term was five years less a day. The courts established he was not
entitled to a jury trial. That little thing of less than a day under five years
is extremely important.
I would
like to point out that when we are talking about securities fraud, we are
talking about theft basically. It is pretty serious when you are relating it to
securities, because it is money belonging to other people. It is theft, and we
certainly want to make sure that a person gets a fair hearing.
I
actually think that with this change we are ensuring that a person gets a real
fair hearing and a hearing that will be based on, as I said, some real in-depth
study by a judge.
So
having said that, I am happy to support this bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
only going to take a couple of moments. Obviously, I will be supporting this
bill. I am sure everybody in the House of Assembly will be supporting this.
Really, as it has been said, it was just an oversight in the previous
legislation of changing five years to five years less a day.
As
others have said, I don't want to be too repetitive. Obviously, what we have
here is it is felt that in this type of offence, which is really a white collar
crime we are talking about, it would be preferable that that type of case would
be overseen by a judge versus a judge and jury. If the legislation stays as is,
where it says five years, then there would be a requirement under the Charter to
have a case by judge and jury.
I think
what happened in the previous case, an individual wanted the judge and jury but
they only got the judge, and because they never had the opportunity for judge
and jury, it got thrown out. We want to avoid that here in this province.
Obviously, by making the offence, if found guilty, to be a sentence of five
years less a day, then we eliminate the requirement under the Charter for a
judge and jury trial and we can simply have a case that would be overseen by a
judge only.
That's
my understanding of this bill. It makes total sense. We're just cleaning up the
language. While it is housekeeping, there's no doubt the impact of it is huge.
We saw a case where somebody, I guess, in theory, was guilty of an offence and
it got thrown out. We want to avoid those things from happening. That's why
we're making this change, as subtle as it is. The impact, as I said, is great.
Obviously, that's why I, and I'm sure every Member in the House, will support
this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and say a couple of words on Bill 15, An Act
to Amend the Securities Act. As colleagues around the House have said about this
legislation, it's a small change but it's an important change I guess.
The R.
v. Peers case in Alberta, our change is a result of that but not as a result of
the case. It's more of a result of what the Supreme Court had found out during
their review of the legislation, of the five years less a day. Then, of course,
when our Service NL officials, upon reviewing that decision, realized our
legislation did need some adjusting, which is a good thing, but I guess there's
a lesson in this, too.
I heard
my colleague for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi mention about making mistakes in our
legislation. It's always good to have a second set of eyes. None of this stuff
is done intentionally, but things like this happen. It's always good to see
people – I guess I'll throw out a bouquet to the officials for being aware
enough to review these things, keeping on top of this stuff, because as little
as it may seem or as little a change that may be, it does have a big implication
on this legislation and much other legislation you'll see come and go in our
Parliaments across the country. It's good to see we're keeping on top of that
because one word, as we know, can have such a drastic difference on the outcome
of any case, of anyone's rights and freedoms.
I
commend Service NL officials for doing that. As my colleague from Cape St.
Francis stated, we will be supporting this legislation. I think it was just more
of a want to get up to pass along my commentary on the review of the department
officials and how important it is to look at all legislation, all cases across
the country, doing your cross-jurisdictional scans to make sure we are in
keeping with what's across our country and to make sure the trials are conducted
in a fair manner for all involved.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to be back here in the House of Assembly again today, back here debating
legislation. I had an opportunity to speak to the media this morning. When we
talk about the fact that sometimes there's a perception that when we're not in
the House of Assembly we may not be working, I said that's obviously not the
case; you can ask any Member that it certainly is busy year-round. That being
said, when the House is in session, it does bring a different sense of urgency.
There's certainly a lot of work.
This,
I've submitted, is the main reason that we are here. We are here; we have the
ability and the privilege of being able to debate legislation that governs the
people of the province. It's a responsibility that we all take quite seriously
and something that certainly I've learned through my career in this House to
take very seriously, but also enjoy.
I enjoy
the cut and thrust of debate. I also enjoy the opportunity to look at
legislation and figure out why you're making a change. Not just making a change
for the sake of making a change, but looking at it and then debating the
repercussions of that.
Now,
that being said, there are certain pieces of legislation that are more
substantive than others. This is one that I don't think I'll offend anybody by
saying this piece of legislation, this amendment to the
Securities Act, is not on the grand
scale of amendments that we've seen here in the House of Assembly.
That
being said, when you look at it, it's a very small in its actual size. We're
only changing one thing, but there are a couple of points that I felt were
important that I stand here today and have an opportunity to speak to this; one
specific to the bill and one just about the change that we're making here.
It
wasn't that long ago, it was only a few weeks ago, that we were here in this
House of Assembly debating legislation that had been drafted here in the House
or had been drafted here, been passed here and then was faced with a
constitutional challenge that was successful. It made various provisions of that
piece of legislation unconstitutional and invalid.
In that
particular case, we had a situation where we could not have a by-election
because the rules governing special ballots were found to be unconstitutional.
We needed to come back; we needed to change that provision so that we can ensure
a constitutional election. We all realize the importance of having legislation
that is constitutionally sound.
When you
look at the change that's being made here – and, again, Mr. Speaker, I can
remember one debate we were here for a day and night. We may have been a couple
of days just debating the difference in the words “may” versus “shall.” We could
go on for days about that difference, how it can apply and how important that
difference can be.
In this
case, we're dealing with a very, very small change when you think about it.
We're changing the term under subsection 122(1) and 122(4) from a term of not
more than five years to a term of not more than five years less a day.
I think
the minister has done a very good job of explaining the importance of that.
Personally, I think whenever you have provisions of any legislation that involve
imprisonment, when they involve the denial of a person's liberty, that is of the
utmost importance to absolutely everybody.
Now,
this is a situation where I do not think we have seen offences under this nature
that have been brought forward. I don't think we've actually seen charges, but
we would hate to see two things happen here. We would hate to see a case where a
charge was brought forward that was then thrown out because we have a
constitutionally non-compliant clause. We don't want to see that obviously.
The
second part, though, is you would hate to see somebody denied their Charter
right, the right to a trial by jury, by a jury of one's peers, because it's not
there reflected in the legislation.
We're
lucky here. In many cases, it depends. We have cases where we get the
opportunity to change our legislation. This is a normal thing that happens. We
have to come here, we have to modify and amend our legislation to deal with the
times. We're very lucky in this case where there is a decision from another
jurisdiction which we can see the benefit of and make the corresponding changes
to our legislation to ensure that we are in compliance.
In some
cases, like the case I just referenced, or the legislation regarding the
Elections Act, we weren't that lucky.
We had to have a court case here and we had to change our legislation in
response to a court case here, in response to a person who was found to have
their Charter rights denied, infringed upon, and there was found to be no
justification for that.
So,
again, I'm very happy to say that we are here today for what I think is a very
simple clause, but one that is very important. We have not seen a case of this
is an actual response to an actual situation that we've dealt with here in the
province; but, that being said, it's very important that we have this made in
case this is something that comes up.
Obviously, I'm supportive of the minister. I'm supportive of the change that we
want to make here. I'll be supporting this provision as we move forward. I could
go on all day about the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms but I'll leave that for other legislation.
One
thing I want to say, though, it's just an opportunity I took recently where you
deal with something like the Securities
Act and it's not a piece of legislation that's widely used by a large number
of people within this province. In fact, when I was practising back in my
pre-elected days, the Securities Act
was not something I dealt with. I had no experience with it and I couldn't tell
you whether the provisions were good, bad or indifferent. It's not something
that I practised or dealt with. I had no involvement with it whatsoever.
Recently, I had an opportunity – one of the things I get to do, as an elected
politician, as an legislator and as someone who's in charge of the Department of
Justice, I get to speak with people who do use this legislation on a daily
basis. This piece of legislation has been in place for some time. I think the
last change might have been in the last four or five years.
I had an
opportunity – I actually heard from a solicitor in this practice who said the
legislation, in some ways, they think, there could be modifications made that
would update it and make it better for those who are using it. So what I
suggested to that person, and what I suggested to the Law Society, I've
suggested to people out there, is if you have a suggestion for changes to
legislation, then I'm all ears; the minister is all ears. We are all willing to
hear that and to consider changes to legislation that will make it better
applicable to the people of the province, that will just make it better
legislation.
You can
break it right down to its most basic: Does it make the legislation better? That
being said, you cannot change legislation just because it makes things easier;
you can't change it just for the sake of change. You don't realize until you get
in and look at the people behind the scenes that are doing this work, that are
doing the jurisdictional scans and analysis that are looking at this legislation
– and not just that. If you change this, for every action there's an equal
reaction. So in this case if you change something, well, what's going to happen?
Did you forecast? Did you have the ability to figure out what are the possible
repercussions and changes, positive and negative, that can come from that?
It's
quite clear in this case that if the change was not made, there would be a very
negative consequence. So what I've suggested to that solicitor, specifically as
it relates to the Securities Act, if
you have changes that you'd like to see brought to this act, I would invite you
to come and get in touch with the minister, get in touch with any of us. That's
our job; the doors are always open to hear that.
The
other thing I would say is, in many cases, people suggest a change and that's
all they do, they suggest a change but come at it with some – and I say this
specifically to the people I've dealt with. I've said, look, I'm always willing
to entertain you but you need to come prepared, to have that conversation, to be
able to explain to us why is it better, why does it need to be changed.
That's
why I like doing this work, that's why a lot of us like doing this work, because
we can figure out how to make things better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
for something as important as the
Elections Act and as important as the
Securities Act. There are other pieces of legislation that are, dare I say,
less important but the fact is every single piece here is necessary. Every
single piece of legislation we have is necessary. It's just that some can be
updated and can be modified and we're always willing to listen.
So to
the solicitors out there – I doubt he's listening right now. I don't know if
this will quality as a billable hour or not, but what I would suggest is if you
want to see change, we're always willing to have that – especially when you deal
with lawyers in the community. In many cases, they are dealing first-hand – they
are frequent users of the House of Assembly webpage. When you go to the section
that says Consolidation of Statutes, they're the ones using it; they're the ones
dealing with this legislation. So I would suggest to them, please come forward.
We would love to hear suggestions, and the doors are always open to have that.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is I congratulate the minister on making
this happen. The Minister of Service NL is going to be one of the busier
ministers this session of the House. There are a number of pieces of legislation
coming forward, so I look forward to supporting her in those debates.
Thank
you for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Service NL speaks now she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, these changes
will bring Newfoundland and Labrador in line with other jurisdictions across
Canada, and that was the original intent.
I thank
my colleagues in this House for supporting this amendment, and I would also like
to thank the officials in the Department of Service NL.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 15 –
MS. ROGERS:
On a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to rise on a point of order in section 49. When I was presenting my petition and
then speaking to the petition on the book tax, the Member for Placentia West –
Bellevue called out to me: Gerry, honey.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't think that's very appropriate in this House. Considering how
difficult it is for women to get elected in this House, that kind of
disrespectful, sexist language is totally inappropriate in the people's House.
I would
like to call a point of order on that, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Member to
apologize to the House for that sexist comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
stand I guess to respond to the point of order raised by the Member opposite.
What I would suggest is – again, it's not something I heard, but I would suggest
at this point that the House would take it under advisement and review the
recordings of this matter in order to make a proper determination as to whether
the statement was made and, if so, how it will be disposed of.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I echo
the desire from the Government House Leader that we check both
Hansard and the video, because there were people in this House other
than my colleague who heard what was said. Unfortunately, I was not in the House
at that moment because I'll tell if I were I would have been up pretty fast
calling a point of order. I do ask that both
Hansard and the video be checked to ascertain what was said.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
would reiterate that, yes, obviously the video,
Hansard or anything else should be checked to determine if such a
statement was made and then the Chair will have the opportunity to handle the
matter appropriately.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Chair will take it under advisement and report back to the House.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 15 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Securities Act. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
15)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Reid):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 15)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Minister, I am just wondering if there are any cases in the courts right now
that could be affected by this ruling. I know right now it is going to be Royal
Assent as soon as it comes in through, but I was wondering if there are any
cases that could have an effect on this right now.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
No, not that I am aware of.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers?
Shall
Clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Clause 1
is carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Clause
is carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Securities Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without an amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 15.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 15 carried.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy Chair
of Committees.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report the bill without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 15 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 18.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the hon. Member for Labrador West, that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Prepaid
Funeral Services Act, be now read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.”
(Bill 18)
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
introduce Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Prepaid Funeral Services Act for the
second reading in this hon. House today. Prepaid funerals are an increasingly
common service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many individuals choose to
pre-arrange their end-of-life plans after relieving the financial burden on
their family members.
As the
act currently exists, its administration and enforcement is a responsibility
held by me as the Minister of Service NL. In my department, however, the
administration and enforcement of other financial services such as insurance,
securities, real estate and mortgage brokers is carried out by the Financial
Services Regulation Division. If charges are laid in a particular case, I am not
made aware until after they have been laid.
It is
important that the regulation of any of our financial services, or any services
for that matter, be applied without any perception of influence at the
ministerial level. It is also important that those who fail to comply with the
law are held accountable for their actions. It will be more appropriate for the
duties associated with prepaid funerals to be carried out in a manner that is
more consistent with the regulation of the other financial services. In fact,
having all these financial services regulated by the Financial Services
Regulation Division of my department is consistent with most other jurisdictions
across Canada.
Amending
the act as recommended would transfer responsibility for the day-to-day
activities and administration decisions involving licensing, compliance and
enforcement matters from me as minister to a registrar and deputy registrar. As
minister, I will still retain the authority to appoint a board or a person to
administer the Consumer Protection Fund and still have the overall
responsibility for the act and its policy direction.
The
amendment will allow for the appointment of the director of Financial Services
Regulation as the registrar and the manager of Financial Analysis as the deputy
registrar. The responsibilities of the registrar and the deputy registrar will
be assigned by virtue of the positions they hold within Service NL. These
positions are staffed through the Public Service Commission process.
One of
the key advantages of this approach is that it will allow for more effective and
efficient administration of the act by streamlining the processes for issuing
and suspending licences. The act will also align Newfoundland and Labrador's
legislation with that of most other provinces.
As a
government, Mr. Speaker, we place a high priority on consumer protection. We
take this responsibility very seriously. Like many other pieces of legislation
brought forward by my department, these amendments focus on consumer protection
and are consistent with our Way Forward commitments, as well as my mandate
letter as Minister of Service NL. These amendments are a further testament to
our commitment to maintain consumer protection measures to protect consumers
against fraud or bad business practices.
Like
other financial services, prepaid funerals are subject to regulation in order to
protect consumers' financial investments, but preplanning a funeral is about so
much more than a financial transaction. It is about decisions surrounding one of
the most difficult periods of individuals, family and friends face in their
lifetime.
With
these amendments, the public can have confidence in the independent oversight of
prepaid funeral services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It gives
me great privilege to get up here again today and speak on another bill. I have
a funny feeling, Minister, that I may be a little busy with the role as critic
for your department because I'm sure there's going to be a lot of legislation
coming through.
In
saying that, the Department of Service NL – and for most of the people at home
listening to some of the debate, not really debate, the legislation that's
coming forward today I always say that the Department of Service NL has you from
the time you're born till the time you die, because there is so much involved in
that department.
There
are different things in the department that are very important to people, and
this important too. I know that there are a lot of people out in society today
that like to put all their orders, we'll say, in order for when they're passing.
Most people today look at prepaid funerals as a way to not leave burdens for
their loved ones and making sure that there is no burden. As you know, any time
a person passes away, there's usually a family member left behind to take care
of the affairs of that person.
When you
look at prepaid funerals, people in this province and all over Canada, I would
imagine, don't want to leave that burden to their loved ones, saying there's
enough on the go now; so prepaid funerals are very important to people in the
province, as are very important to their family members that this is done.
I
understand the legislation that's being brought here today. Like I said at the
start of it, the minister has a lot on her plate as the Minister of Service NL.
What we're doing here today, there are 23 different amendments that will be done
to the legislation. It's a huge piece of legislation but, in most places, it is
just replacing the word from “minister” to “registrar.”
Also, in
this piece of legislation – I listened to the minister speak – this is what's
done in other parts of Canada. It's done through a registrar. It's also
important to note that she mentioned it's not a new position; it's a person
that's already in the Department of Service NL. I believe it is the director of
Financial Services Regulation Division.
Not only
are they making that person be the registrar, there is also another position,
which I assume again is a position within the department – and the minister is
shaking her head and saying yes. It's also called the deputy registrar.
Just
reading the legislation, the deputy registrar is there just in case something
could happen to the registrar. He may be sick; maybe something that happens. So
it's a backup plan to have a person in place so that any issues that come with
prepaid funerals or whatever, that we have two people in place. So that's a good
move and it's good to do that.
The
legislation itself, the registrar will be taking the role of what the minister
is doing right now. That takes a bit of workload off the minister and maybe it
may bring a little bit more expertise to prepaid funerals and questions that
people have when it comes to prepaid funerals.
So like
I said, most of the stuff that we went through and we looked at the legislation
– and there are a lot of amendments there. There are 23 altogether, but most of
it is just changing a word and changing the responsibility.
As the
minister said, when it comes to financial services and stuff like that, most of
the stuff goes through the department first and then comes to the minister
afterwards, and that's basically what is happening with this part of the
legislation also. So we will be supporting this.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We're
starting a trend here, myself and the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. B. DAVIS:
No, a trend, trend. You should use your hearing piece there – a trend of
supporting legislation that we're bringing forward. I hope that continues for
the rest of this sitting.
MR. K. PARSONS: If
it's good legislation, I'll support it.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Excellent, that's what we want to hear.
Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to stand here again today in
this hon. House to speak to Bill 18, amendments to the
Prepaid Funeral Services Act. A prepaid funeral is a more common
service than ever before that allows individuals to purchase and pay for their
funerals in advance, which is very, very thoughtful on their behalf. People who
choose to prepay their funeral services are making an important financial
decision.
Their goal is to relieve the financial burden on their
family members when they're at their most vulnerable time. These people are
placing a great amount of trust in the funeral homes that sell prepaid funeral
services. This is why it is so important that a government have the necessary
oversight and regulation in place to protect those customers.
Mr.
Speaker, the Prepaid Funeral Services Act
was enacted in 2000 for this very purpose. The intent of this act is to ensure
that these investments that customers are making in these services are there for
them when they ultimately need them. The act requires that funeral homes selling
prepaid funerals be licensed to offer these services, and that stands to a good
reason.
At this
point in time, there are 51 active licences issued to funeral homes in this
province to sell prepaid funerals. The act also requires these funeral homes to
adequately disclose what is being purchased in a prepaid funeral contract. This
makes insurmountable sense so people understand exactly what they're purchasing
when they're purchasing it.
In many
cases, these contracts may not be fulfilled for many, many years. So it is
crucial and critical that customers have some sort of assurance that the monies
they have invested will be there when they need it. That's why the act also
requires that all monies paid to funeral homes for prepaid services be kept in a
trust account. In fact, right now in Newfoundland and Labrador approximately
$47.5 million is currently being held in trust for residents who have prepaid
their funeral expenses. Many people are calling for this, as you can just hear a
second ago.
Mr.
Speaker, the existing act goes even further to protect the interest of these
customers. It also requires funeral homes to file audited statements for the
funds in trust and an audited report on the funeral homes' compliance with the
minister annually.
The act
also provides for a consumer protection fund, which will be funded through the
assessments in the industry. This fund is in place to pay claims to customers
should the licensee become bankrupt, fail to refund the money when the contract
is cancelled and/or the funeral goods and services are not provided in
accordance with how it was contracted.
So as
you can see, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very important tool. As my
colleague from the other side of the House mentioned as well, and the minister,
it's very important for protecting the consumers and giving them peace of mind
as they prepare for the end of their lives.
Not only
will these changes make the legislation consistent with the regulations of other
financial services in this province, it will also serve to make the legislation
stronger by ensuring that enforcement is carried out by independent, impartial
members of the public service, and for that we can all be thankful.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
quite pleased to stand here today and to speak to Bill 18, the bill which is An
Act to Amend the Prepaid Funeral Services Act. As has been pointed out by the
minister and my colleagues, the big change here is not so much the act itself
and what the act is about, but changing who is in charge of maintaining the act,
who is in charge of making sure that everything is being managed well.
The bill
creates the position of registrar of prepaid funeral services. The person now
responsible is no longer the minister, but is the person who's designated as the
registrar. As has been pointed out by others, in practice, this will not be a
new position created or a new person put in a position because right now the
director of Financial Services is the person who carries out the role really of
the registrar and not that of the minister.
As has
been pointed out, too, by others in the House and my colleague for Virginia
Waters – Pleasantville, this removes the danger, I think – and I think that's
what he was referring to – of political interference when something like this is
in the hands of a minister or perception of it may not be, but perception of it.
By
taking something like this which involves securities issues, which involves
finances away from the elected person and put into the hands of the professional
person who's in the public service sector removes that potential real or
perceived or otherwise of a minister inserting his or herself in a way that is
not appropriate, not ethical.
I think
it's extremely important that this change is being made, especially because we
are dealing with something that is not always but I suspect, for the most part,
used by people who are more vulnerable when it comes to income. I've known
senior citizens who use or have used prepaid funerals. There's one I can think
of, the mother of a friend of mine, and she felt so proud of the fact that when
she died, the children weren't going to have to worry about her funeral. She was
so proud of the fact that she had been able, slowly, over a certain number of
years, to put enough money in that her funeral was going to be covered. The
little bit she had left, they would still be able to take the little bit she
owned and none of it would have to be lost to her funeral. She was a very frugal
woman. She lived her life in such a way that she had done this without suffering
herself and made sure that her children didn't have to worry.
I know
of others, but this woman in my mind particularly stands out because she was the
mother of a friend and a very organized person. She was just a tremendous woman.
I think of women and men like that who do use the prepaid funeral. I think the
role of the registrar is extremely important, because from the management
perspective, there really does need to be a lot of oversight. You never know
what might happen.
For
example, a few years ago in Manitoba, there was a funeral home that completely
went under. People had their money there with that funeral home and they had no
protection. Now, we haven't had that kind of a thing happen here but it could
happen. The role of the registrar is to be monitoring all the time, I think,
those who have the licences to hold the trust funds, those who have the licences
to take the money of other people. They need to be monitored at all times. I
think having it in the hands of a registrar assures that kind of thing is going
to happen.
There
are other things that can happen too. I had, for example, a phone call from
somebody only a few months ago. This person was quite distraught. She's in a
home for senior citizens and she was being subsidized. Her money was being
managed, of course, by the management of the home. She had been under the
impression that money was being taken out to go into a prepaid funeral. All of a
sudden, she found out after a few years that hadn't been happening. She was
really upset, but there was really nothing that could be done about it. If she
wanted to do it, she was going to have to start from scratch at that moment and
start putting money in for her prepaid funeral.
I think
that's the kind of thing the registrar has to be on the lookout for. I don't
know what resources are there for that, but the whole thing of monitoring what
is going on, monitoring the individuals who are either, through a home where
they live or directly with a funeral home, that they are being taken care of,
that they are not being disadvantaged. That nobody is in any way taking
advantage of them or ignoring them.
This
woman wasn't taken advantage of, but something she thought was happening just
wasn't happening. How does that kind of thing get monitored on a regular basis?
I think that is something the registrar would have to look at. Having said that,
I think it is a good system obviously. It is one that does, as I said, benefit
very often people of lower income and we have to make sure they are protected.
So I am
really glad to see this change, even though in practice it is not a change. On
paper it is, and I think it is an important change on paper that we are changing
the legislation, and I am happy to support the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member of Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not
going to take very long here. I will be supporting Bill 18, An Act to Amend the
Prepaid Funeral Services Act.
I think
everything that needs to be said has been said. Basically, all we are doing here
is currently we are going to delegate authority from the minister to the
superintendent to be in charge of the enforcement of the prepaid funeral
legislation, the act and so on; the Prepaid Funeral Services Act, to be exact.
It makes
a whole lot of sense in terms of removing the political figure and putting it in
the hands of the staff. I think the reality of it is that's currently who is
doing it now anyway. It's really not the minister who is administering this on a
daily basis anyway. It's being done by the registrar of funeral services now as
we speak in the department. Really, all the legislation is doing is catching up
with the reality of what is actually happening anyway. It's really, I suppose, a
housekeeping thing in that regard.
I have
no objection. I don't see any issue with it. I think it just makes sense, and I
will be supporting it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
I
recognize the hon. the Minister of Service NL. If she speaks now she will close
the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I just want to
thank my colleagues here again for supporting the amendment to the Prepaid
Funeral Services Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I just want to add that the
overall responsibility of the act still lie with the Minister of Service NL, but
the registrar and deputy registrar, of course, will be doing the administration.
I thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 18 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 18.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left
the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.” (Bill 18)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 18
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 18
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 18 carried.
CLERK: Be it
enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session
convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the
enacting clause carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK: An Act To
Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.
CHAIR: Shall the
title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 18
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 18.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 18.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker retuned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Chair of the
Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 18 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 18 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 16.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
real pleasure to be back in the House again and talking about legislation.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I need
you to direct your remarks.
MR. HAWKINS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Health and Community Services, that we would read Bill 16 for the
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 16 entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act now be read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.” (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure to be back in the House again. It's a ditto on that one.
We
always get excited when we come and talk about legislation and being in the
House. It's always an opportunity for us to talk about legislation that, from
time to time, needs change. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the changes
that are necessary.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, is no exception as we look at Bill 16. It is an area that I just
wanted to make some reference to because we're talking actually about the bill
that really will give us a little bit more continuity and clarity as we move
forward on this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, I guess just a little preamble before we get into the actual discussion
on the bill. I just wanted to make reference to the Labour Management
Arbitration Committee. The committee in itself is a volunteer committee. It was
formed by the employer and union stakeholders and was in operation for decades.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a role that was established, a roster of arbitrators to be used by
both union and employers. They would develop fee guidelines for the arbitrators,
they would organize arbitrator training and provide the minister with a list of
arbitrators for ministerial appointments.
Mr.
Speaker, this is certainly a committee that is very, very important,
particularly, when we look at employer and union relationships. We all know from
time to time that we all strive to provide services that are best for both
employers and union alike.
Of
course, Mr. Speaker, in my position as Minister of Labour responsible for
labour, as you know, I have to remain neutral throughout any conciliations or
any arbitrations. Sometimes, that may appear to be somewhat difficult but, Mr.
Speaker, I think in all fairness, it's important that I respect the position of
minister and certainly respect the position that is necessary for me to be
neutral when it comes to any of these arbitrations.
Mr.
Speaker, the Labour Management Arbitration Committee managed the arbitration
process for many years. They ceased operation due to a variety of concerns
regarding liability protection and their lack of a formal organizational
structure. Employer and union stakeholders requested that government enact
legislation that formalized such a structure.
Mr.
Speaker, on June 4, 2008, Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act was
proclaimed which established the Labour Management Arbitration Committee. That
was to promote, establish and maintain high-quality and effective arbitration
processes. The volunteer aspect of the committee was a continuation of the
former set-up that was in place.
Mr.
Speaker, the change that we are going to be putting in today is significant
because the position that we're looking at extending is a very, very crucial
position in that the director, which is a non-voting, ex officio of that
committee, provides invaluable advice to the committee. Certainly, the director
of the Labour Relations, in particular, provides a tremendous amount of
expertise, guidance, direction to me as minister. I rely very heavily on that
position, Mr. Speaker, to provide that information through briefings as we work
through some of the labour relations that we have in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure for me today to rise in this hon. House and
to introduce Bill 16, the amendment to the
Labour Relations Act, to make sure that we have this continuity, that
we have this expertise. Because of a regulation that's presently in place, if we
were not to change this today, it would mean that we would lose that ability to
have that expert advice. We would lose the ability to have the information and
all of the information that this particular position brings with it to give us
advice on labour relations and the arbitration committee.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill may be considered minor in
nature, it will allow for the continuity and the very important work of the
Labour Management Arbitration Committee. By way of background, on June 4, 2008,
as I mentioned earlier, the Labour
Relations Act was amended to establish the Labour Management Arbitration
Committee. This committee, since 2008, has been doing exemplary work and
certainly have done a lot of work in this area of arbitration and made it easier
for people and either employers or unions to have a hearing in this particular
situation.
The committee was created to promote, again, and establish
and maintain a high quality and effective arbitration process. It establishes
education and experience standards for arbitrators and maintains, again, as I
said, a roster of qualified arbitrators.
Mr. Speaker, the power and duties of the committee are to
establish educational and experience standards for arbitrators. It's set up to
oversee qualifications and training processes, establish and maintain a roster of persons who, in the opinion of the
committee, are qualified to conduct arbitrations and other actions that promote
the effectiveness and the quality of the arbitrations.
Mr.
Speaker, the committee is made up of nine members: three members who represent
labour; three members who represent the employers, one of which represents
government as an employer; two members who represent the arbitrators; and one
member who represents government in an unofficial capacity.
The
government representative, in an unofficial capacity, is a non-voting member and
not counted for the purposes of a quorum. This non-voting member who represents
government in an unofficial capacity is currently filled by the director of
Labour Relations under Workforce Development, Labour and Immigration Branch of
the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
Mr.
Speaker, the intent of this change in Bill 65 is to address the fact that if we
do not make this change today that we lose some continuity, we may lose the
expertise that the director of Labour Relations can bring to the Arbitration
Committee.
Mr.
Speaker, as it is clearly stated, the director of Labour Relations, under the
Workforce Development, Labour and Immigration Branch – we need to be very clear
– is non-voting and is not counted for a quorum. So in that sense, the position
brings with it a degree of expertise. It also brings with it the opportunity for
members of the committee to engage in dialogue with this person who is trained
as a director for Labour Relations.
We are
looking today, because if we were to follow the regulations in the existing bill
that we have, then there's a possibility that the director of Labour Relations
would have to no longer serve on that committee. Even though it is a non-voting
capacity, it is still an important position and it is necessary for us, in my
estimation as minister, to maintain that level of expertise that the director is
providing to the committee and to the members that are there.
As I
mentioned, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, we have a balanced committee: three
members who represent labour; three members who represent the employers; and two
members who represent the arbitrators. So the director of Labour Relations
certainly will bring to that committee in an unofficial capacity and in a
non-voting capacity the expertise that is necessary for the committee to do the
work in which they're intended to do.
Mr.
Speaker, the director has served as an unofficial government representative for
several years, so it's not something that is new. If you have a director of
Labour Relations under the existing bill as we see it, it really provides some
limitations and may cause certainly some break in providing the information that
we feel is necessary for this committee to effectively do the job in which they
are intended to do.
This is
a very important committee in that the term in itself “arbitration committee,”
the meaning tells exactly what it's supposed to be doing. As a result of that we
know, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, it's a balanced committee so sometimes we
need, within that committee, the expertise that a director of Labour Relations
can provide.
Mr.
Speaker, the reason today that I'm rising to speak to this bill to make some
changes is that under the existing bill the director of Labour Relations term of
office would finish. If that is the case, as I've said, it's important for us to
maintain the continuity of this committee. In order to do that, it is essential
for me, as minister, to put forward today the changes to the bill that would
permit the director to serve a longer term – as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,
to serve the term as long as that particular director of labour relations is in
that position. Sometimes that could go beyond the time that is now presently in
the bill that we have. In order for us to do that it is necessary – and I'm
looking forward to Members opposite to support this bill today because, again,
it will enable us to do the work that the committee has set out to do.
The
committee, Mr. Speaker, has been doing a tremendous amount of work in the
arbitration as an Arbitration Committee. We have seen some very, very good
results as this committee continues to do the work that it's intended to do.
Quite
often, Mr. Speaker, as they do the work that's necessary, the director of Labour
Relations, by sitting as an unofficial member of that committee, can provide the
knowledge that's necessary and certainly has the expertise within the labour
relations to be able to provide that advice to the committee. These members then
can make what would be considered an informed decision because the director of
Labour Relations has that direct contact with the committee.
Mr.
Speaker, if today we were to remove the director of Labour Relations from the
committee as the act, as the bill presently states, then we would lose that
expertise. I'm not just sure how we would be able to put a person in that
position with the expertise that we have.
Mr.
Speaker, while in fact the debate, or the Bill 16 today, while it may seem to be
somewhat minor in nature, this is very important. It's important for me as the
minister, and I'm sure it's important for the House, to recognize the work the
director of Labour Relations has done on this particular committee in the term
that she has served, and will continue to do if in fact this bill is amended
today, will certainly provide the knowledge that is necessary for us to be able
to do the work that this committee is designed to do as we move forward with any
arbitrations.
Mr.
Speaker, again, as I said, while the current term has expired, the director has
continued to serve in this unofficial capacity as provided for under the
legislation. It is important that the individual appointed to the committee to
represent government in an unofficial capacity have the working knowledge of the
subject area, and there's no better person, Mr. Speaker, to represent government
than the director of Labour Relations.
This
particular position brings with it the knowledge and the expertise that is
necessary to give the proper guidance and direction to the Arbitration
Committee. I consider the director, Mr. Speaker, to be somewhat of a conduit
between the branch and the committee, and has been a member since the
committee's inception in 2008. The director brings a level of labour relations,
experience and expertise to the committee which is a critical component for the
member who represents government in the unofficial capacity.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, under the legislation we have, individuals can only
serve for two terms. A term is up to three years, which requires the replacement
of a member on a regular basis.
Again,
in this position, Mr. Speaker, it's very, very important for us to make the
necessary changes to this bill and to this legislation. While I realize many
other pieces of legislation do have a term of office and quite often these terms
of office are filled by people that are merit based and people who have a
knowledge in their field, and sometimes there's a restriction placed on the
terms of office, obviously for certain reasons, Mr. Speaker, but in this
particular case we are looking at a very, very important position. That being
the director of Labour Relations, who, in fact, is giving invaluable advice to
this particular committee.
It is my
hope today, with the consent of the hon. Members opposite, that we will allow
the director of Labour Relations to continue to serve in her capacity, and to be
able to provide the information and provide the expertise that this particular
committee would require from time to time.
Mr.
Speaker, given the role of the Member who represents government in an unofficial
capacity, as I just outlined, it is important that a level of continuity be
provided to ensure a smooth transition of other appointments to the committee
and to provide the history and background to new Members.
Mr.
Speaker, that is a very, very important piece of this legislation as well,
because as you know, as I referenced earlier, there are terms of reference for
the three Members who represent labour and the three Members who represent
employers and the two Members who represent the arbitrators. Sometimes with the
change that takes place in each of these different areas, there are new people
that come to the committee.
The
director of Labour Relations becomes an even more important position as an
unofficial non-voting member, ex officio member of the committee, when we have
new members come on, can provide the expertise and knowledge that the position
brings with it. Really, Mr. Speaker, makes any transition from – as Members move
in to the committee, a transition in to that committee much easier because the
director of Labour Relations would have that experience.
Mr.
Speaker, if we were not able to change Bill 16 today to permit that director to
continue in the capacity that the director is presently serving in, then we lose
that level of expertise and we lose that knowledge base by putting someone new
in there that may not necessarily have the background, may not necessarily have
the labour relations laws, may not really have all that expertise that this
particular position has. So we would lose that degree of continuity. We would
lose that degree of expertise as we move from a committee that could have new
members and not have that glue that really holds that committee together.
So, Mr.
Speaker, given the role of the Member who represents government in that
unofficial capacity, as I've just outlined, it is important we continue to have
that knowledge to ensure the members that this committee is working effectively
in the capacity in which it was created in 2008 when the legislation enabled the
committee to put together a committee that would be able in a position to
arbitrate between employers and unions. If we're not able to make that change,
Mr. Speaker, I fear that we could lose that important aspect of that committee.
So
there's a history in that committee since 2008, and the amount of work that
committee has done – there's been a tremendous amount of work and when making
those changes back in 2008 under the legislation, provided opportunities for
employers and for union to be able to get together on issues that need to be
facing arbitration.
I can
only imagine the many times as that committee has met over the years and many
times when the director of Labour Relations has had to sit in on that committee,
there has been many times when the expertise and the level of knowledge that
that position has brought with it has certainly contributed to the fact that the
committee has worked efficiently and effectively and has done its job that it
was intended to do.
Mr.
Speaker, members of the committee has identified the need for such continuity of
the member who represents the government in an unofficial capacity. That, in
itself, is a vote of confidence, when the members of that committee themselves
are saying that we need to have that level of continuity continuing and that
there should not be a term placed on the director of Labour Relations.
Obviously the members of that committee, representing both union and employers,
realize that in order for them to effectively do the job that they're intended
to do, that it's necessary for us to continue to have the director of Labour
Relations to continue in an unofficial capacity. Therefore, the amendment that
we are proposing today is to remove the limitation of a maximum of a two-term
appointment for the member who represents government in an unofficial capacity.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that if we are to look at
Hansard after this, you will notice that I have intentionally mentioned
“unofficial capacity” a number of times because I think that is the important
piece in this whole debate and whole discussion of the legislation.
It's an
unofficial capacity and in an unofficial capacity the director of Labour
Relations sits as a non-voting member. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, in
itself, there should probably not be a limitation on the number of terms that
this position can sit on the committee. Again, the whole idea of having the
director of Labour Relations on the committee provides the information that's
necessary.
I would
assume, Mr. Speaker, that there were quite a number of times while that
committee is sitting that there would be issues that would come up, whether from
the employer or whether it's from the union, or maybe the arbitrators themselves
who certainly would need to have some direction and would certainly need to have
someone to point out exactly what would be the labour standards, what would be
the relations, what would be some of the issues that are being discussed. I'm
sure that they have all been in a position where they've applauded the director
of Labour Relations because that person at that time, in an unofficial capacity,
was able to provide the information they needed in order to make a decision that
they were looking at making.
Mr.
Speaker, I can see that this position is a crucial position to provide that
information. It's unbiased; this is an unofficial capacity. So the director of
Labour Relations can provide the same expert advice to the unions or the union
representatives can provide that same level of advice and expertise to the
employers, can provide that same level of expertise, information and knowledge
to the arbitrators.
That, in
itself, is very, very important for us to ensure that we do have that continuity
and that we do have that ability to provide that information in a very timely
manner. Many times when this committee meets, they may be in a situation or
position where they need information immediately and the director of Labour
Relations, sitting there as an unofficial, ex officio member of that committee,
can provide that information in a very timely manner because the position has
that knowledge and expertise. That particular position can then advise that
committee on the issue being discussed. That, in itself, is very, very important
to ensure that as we continue with this committee doing the great work that
they've been doing, that this position can provide that expertise and
information that's necessary.
Mr.
Speaker, the amendment we're proposing today will remove, as I said before, the
limitation. It's very difficult sometimes when you have important positions such
as this particular position to put limitations on it. It gives us the ability to
provide the information on a longer period of time versus having to look at
restricting the information that's necessary, that particular position the
director of Labour Relations can provide.
Mr.
Speaker, this will allow the current representative to continue in his or her
role, ensuring the continuity which will help enable the seamless transition of
other appointments. It will also ensure that new committee members have access
to an individual who has experience, who has the background and has the
knowledge to assist them.
Before
closing, I should also point out that the Labour Management Arbitration
Committee is not subject to the Independent Appointments Commission and is
therefore exempt from the selection process outlined in that legislation. I
think that's important, Mr. Speaker, as well.
This is
a committee structure. As a committee structure, it does not have to go through
the Independent Appointments Commission. Very clearly, this is an arbitration
committee. The arbitration committee, the purpose, as set out in legislation in
2008, was to provide the service that the name in itself says is an arbitration.
So the
members of that committee, the members that are representing the union, the
members that are representing the employers and the arbitrators, none of them
are going through the Independent Appointments Commission. As a sense, Mr.
Speaker, neither should they because this particular committee is representing a
key function within the system, within our system.
It
provides an opportunity for arbitration. It provides a committee; the committee
provides the impetus for either a union or employer. If there are disputes or if
there are situations that need to be discussed, this is the proper channel for
that to go through. Certainly, this committee, as I've stated before, Mr.
Speaker, has provided that service.
While
the committee itself does not have to go through the Independent Appointments
Commission, neither does the unofficial ex officio officer which is the director
of Labour Relations. Mr. Speaker, that in itself provides an opportunity for us
to increase the length of time that the director of Labour Relations can work
within that committee to provide the advice that's necessary and to provide an
opportunity for that committee to effectively do the work it set out to do.
Mr.
Speaker, today, as we make this change, I think it's important for us to realize
that this, though it may seem to be insignificant, is certainly important. It's
important to Bill 16. It's important to the legislation. It's important to the
committee so that the committee can feel confident that as they continue to do
the work they've been entrusted to do, they have that expertise that's on that
committee that can provide that information for them.
Mr.
Speaker, I am so pleased today that I have every confidence – every confidence –
in the present director of Labour Relations to continue to provide that
information. From the experience I've had with the director of Labour Relations,
in the briefings that I've received as minister, have provided invaluable
information. The level of expertise that this particular director of Labour
Relations has is second to none.
I can
assure you and I can assure my Members opposite that by changing this bill today
to enable the director of Labour Relations to continue to serve in the capacity
that she is presently serving in, will do not only this House but the government
as a whole and the committee – will certainly serve it well as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, it is noted, Bill 16, while minor in nature, will allow for
continuity in the important work that the Labour Relations Arbitration Committee
has made.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this very important
issue on Bill 16.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on this bill, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations
Act and the Labour Management Arbitration Committee.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister just spoke on his introduction of the bill, it's
important to distinguish what the director of Labour Relations position does on
the arbitration committee and the fact that this position previously had a term
set to it. As we know, they provide professional and administrative support and,
obviously, a conduit between the minister and the committee in relaying, back
and forth, information which is very important. We all understand that.
In the
previous legislation, there was a set term on that position. Now, it's being
changed. The position will be at the pleasure of the minister. Basically, that
is the crux of the matter, the change with this legislation. As we know, it's an
important piece between employers and unions to have this arbitration committee
in place to deal with the issues. We presently have a full list of arbitrators
available to deal with these issues.
We all
know we deal with a lot of serious labour relations issues within the province.
They occur at any given time. Having the comfort level of the minister
responsible for labour to have someone of his staff to be able to keep him
abreast of what's happening with these committees, making the right decisions as
the minister responsible for labour.
Basically, I don't like to use the term “housekeeping” because we say that
sometimes. It's an important change, but it's not a huge change to the
legislation. It's basically: “A member of the arbitration committee referred to
in paragraphs 91.1(4)(a) to (c) shall serve for a term of up to 3 years.” Then
it says: “The member of the arbitration committee referred to in paragraph
91.1(4)(d) shall serve until the minister appoints a person to replace him or
her.” So there's your change. It went from three years to the fact that the
minister can put someone in place, replace them at their leisure. Other than
that, the rest of the bill remains intact.
From our
side here, it would have been more of a concern if this position had played a
role in voting and effecting change with the committee decisions. Then, I think,
it would have been a concern because I believe that would be a position that
should be reappointed.
You draw
concerns from all sides who would fill that position to make sure that the
committee itself functioned in a fair and unbiased manner. But as the minister
stated numerous times when he spoke, this person normally, like I said, is the
director of Labour Relations, fills a role more of administrative support and
also, obviously, is a huge asset to the minister dealing with decisions that the
board makes in picking arbitrators.
So on
that, we have no issue with this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Again, it's routine
but a very important change required. It's something that we will be supporting
and it makes sense.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to this bill, Bill 16, to amend the
Labour Relations Act.
It's
pretty straightforward, as the minister has pointed out. Now, not to correct the
minister, but to be totally precise, in actual fact the person who is on the
arbitration committee of the board – because that's what it is, it's a committee
of the Labour Relations Board. The person who's on that committee representing
government as an observer, really, as a non-voting person, right now the person
is the director of Labour Relations and that's good. The minister is going to
continue, I think, appointing that person because this act will allow that to
happen, but I do need to point out that the act itself does not say the person
who is appointed to that committee has to be the director of Labour Relations.
The bill
is not about appointing the director of Labour Relations. The bill is about
ensuring the person who is on the committee, appointed by government, does not
have any timelines attached to the person's nomination. So at any time the
minister could find out there might be somebody in the government who is more
qualified than that person to be on the committee.
There's
no definition in the legislation, none whatsoever, with regard to the role of
this person. The person is appointed by government to be on the committee and
obviously plays a significant role I'm sure. It's a non-voting, unofficial
position. I think probably one of the key things is this person is a conduit of
information between the committee itself, the arbitration committee and
government, so that government knows what is going on.
I think
it's important this committee is a committee that is in place because both
labour and employers asked for this committee back in 2008. It was established
as the Labour Management Arbitration Committee, which is under the Labour
Relations Board. It was labour and employers who asked for it, which was a good
sign, I think, both sides being open to arbitration which is important. And then
government has somebody on this committee who is in an unofficial position. It's
really a committee of labour and employers, and government has somebody in an
unofficial position. I think that's excellent.
The bill
is not appointing the director of Labour Relations as that person. One could
have thought maybe that's what was happening, and I don't think the minister
meant it that way. It's allowing the person who is appointed by government on
the arbitration committee to be appointed by government without any terms, any
length of term being mentioned. The minister can have that same person there or
appoint another person, but can maintain a person on that committee. That's what
the legislation says, that there is a person appointed by the minister to
represent government in an unofficial capacity.
It's
good. I'm glad that position is maintained. It's an important position. It's not
a position that would really require a time limit because the person doesn't
vote, it's an unofficial position.
The
point the minister made, I agree with. At this point in time the person who is
there now may be the best qualified person from government's perspective. That's
perfect, but if all of a sudden for some reason it came to the minister, whether
the current minister or another minister, that there is somebody else they would
want to have representing them in an unofficial capacity on this committee, then
the minister doesn't have to check with anybody. The minister can make that
appointment as well.
I think
that's what's important about this. At any time, the minister could choose the
person who is on that committee. I think that's important because I think the
minister wants somebody on it who is qualified to be there and who he knows or
she knows – if it's not this minister – will be a good conduit of information
and play a good role.
From
that perspective, since the person is a non-voting member, the person isn't a
person in a decision-making position, then government, I think, should have the
freedom, the minister should have the freedom to change that person whenever he
or she wants to do that.
It's all
pretty straightforward. The minister has spoken very clearly to it. I'm happy to
support this bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise and speak to Bill 16, an Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act. This is
the second, I do believe, on the Order Paper. We have two bills related to the
Labour Relations Act. This one we're
dealing with now, at this particular time in the House, looks at the amendment
to the act and basically deals with the term length of a person who's appointed
to represent government – as the minister said when he got up to describe the
bill – in an unofficial capacity on the Labour Management Arbitration Committee
and serves now at the discretion of the minister.
This
position as ex-officio has been talked about. As my colleague just talked about
in regard to who fills that position right now is the director of Labour
Relations. In the future going forward, it is my understanding – and maybe in
committee we'll have some discussion about that – it doesn't have to be that
position. I'm not sure in the legislation it's going to be established to be
that position or if the discretion will be held by the minister to appoint
someone outside of that position at some point if he felt that someone else had
the appropriate skill set, appropriate knowledge, appropriate background I
guess, corporate knowledge to proceed in this position. So he or she would have
that ability as minister to appoint that particular person.
The role
is to establish and oversee education experience standards for arbitrators and
maintain a roster of arbitrators which exist today for which the minister can
select when a ministerial appointment as arbitrator is indeed required. Right
now, we have a list of current roster of arbitrators that's available and
there's a roster of those individuals.
I think
the minister talked about, when he got up and gave some historical background,
in regard to the structure of the arbitration committee that was created in
2008, and those training initiatives for those arbitrators, as I said. I think
some of the information we have there now, five individuals on the list
completed their training in 2015. Also, individuals who were grandfathered in
based, I'm sure, on their experience and knowledge and expertise in the area.
In
regard to the arbitration committee and how you would become a member on that
roster of individuals who can provide that service if and when selected by the
minister as an arbitrator, there are certainly two ways. You could apply and if
the criteria is already met, the arbitrator is added automatically to the list
by the committee, which this individual we're talking about here in this
position would sit on as an ex-officio. As the minister also indicated, I think
would be the liaison between the committee and the department.
The
second way you could sit on the roster of arbitrators, when applying if the
criteria is not met, then the individual would need to complete training,
successfully complete various mock awards, and then they would be reviewed by
the committee. That would be practically someone could have the expertise and
knowledge when they apply and/or, if not, when they did apply, the evaluation
would be done and they would go through a process to be – I guess we'll call it
– certified to be an arbitrator as defined in the legislation.
The
Labour Management Arbitration Committee is volunteer based, I understand, with
no compensation. There are nine members; one of them being the official member
who I do believe is not involved in a quorum in regard to when they meet and
when they don't and, as we said before, is the director of Labour Relations.
This
bill, Bill 16, looks at changing the lengths of duration for the unofficial
member of the arbitration. That, as I mentioned, is a member of the department
and connects that to the minister, to the department and a liaison for that
professional and administrative support provided to the committee.
We said
before, and my colleague mentioned as well, it's not defined in the legislation
that the position is automatically filled by the director of Labour Relations.
Again, that's something that could be left to the discretion of the minister to
appoint somebody else.
The bill
as well, our understanding in our briefing, will change the term of this
position by removing the maximum two- to three-year term to six years, and this
will allow directors to stay in the role at a longer period of time at the
pleasure of the minister at the time. I understand the position length for the
other members will remain unchanged at three-year terms within the bill, serving
a maximum of two terms.
I don't
know if the committee as well – maybe the minister, when he gets up, can clarify
that usually in board structures it's a staggered process in regard to replacing
members of a board because that expertise, knowledge, corporate knowledge,
understanding of what's gone on, doesn't see that experience leave the board at
the same time. So what you do, you stagger the replacements. The term would be
up but the terms would be staggered. So as someone would leave the board, just
probably one person leave a board, a new person would be hired and then you'd
have that cross-reference of new appointees, as well as experienced people who
currently sit on that who would provide what was needed for the particular
board, or committee in this case we're talking about.
Those
are a couple of things that I identified going through and maybe when the
minister speaks at the end of second reading, he might respond to those, and/or
certainly in Committee we could ask some questions and get some feedback on that
as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to share some thoughts on Bill 16.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I'm only going to take a minute or two to speak to this, An Act to Amend
the Labour Relations Act. As has been said, basically, currently the situation
we have is that we have a committee, an arbitration committee, in place in the
province and I guess they oversee the arbitration board in terms of who gets
appointed to the board and so on and their terms of reference and those types of
issues – training and all those things, as I understand it.
Right
now, it consists of nine members and one of those members is appointed by the
government, by the department. It's a non-voting individual and that individual
is put there to apply some knowledge, expertise, continuity and so on to this
particular committee so that government is informed of what the issues are as it
relates to labour in our province and so on.
I guess
currently all board members are appointed for a term of three years and they can
serve up to two terms. All we're simply doing is we're just making an exception
for the non-voting government member, that that individual could be put in place
by the minister with an indefinite period of time to serve. It makes perfectly
good sense. If we're going to have this person here and they're a non-voting
person and they're simply there, as I said, to provide that continuity, that
expertise and so on, it only makes sense that the person who's there would
continue on once they've built up that knowledge, to keep that knowledge there.
The
minister can appoint whoever he or she wants in any case. All we're simply
saying is rather than the minister appoint and reappoint and reappoint, that if
they have someone there in place that has the knowledge, that has the expertise
then that person can continue on indefinitely until that person moves on or
retires or the minister, for some other reason, has to replace that individual.
That's
all that's really happening here in this bill. Personally, I don't have any
issue with it. I think it makes good sense and I will be supporting this piece
of legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly my pleasure to end the debate on the bill. I'd just like to say a big
thank you to the Members opposite for the input they had and certainly recognize
the fact that the Member for Conception Bay South, the Leader of the Third Party
and the Member for Ferryland –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask for order, please; I'd
like to hear only from the minister who's been identified to close this debate.
Thank
you.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
recognize the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands as well. I'm not going to make
a lot of comment on closing. I just wanted to recognize the Leader of the Third
Party and the Member for Ferryland; they're absolutely correct in the reference
to the ex officio member.
When I
made my remarks I was using the director of Labour Relations because of the
capacity in that position right now. But they are absolutely correct; the
minister would have the discretion to appoint, depending on the expertise level
that's necessary. So that certainly is correct. I'd like to thank the Leader of
the Third Party for mentioning that because she is correct. It does not
specifically identify the director of Labour Relations. It was my reference to
the director of Labour Relations because that's the capacity in which the person
is in now.
That
will still remain with the minister, the option of appointing the government
representative in the unofficial capacity from the minister. So thank you for
that.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly want to thank you for the opportunity to present the bill
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 16 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Labour Relations Act. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 16.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into a Committee of the Whole
to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.” (Bill 16)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall Clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
had a question for the minister with regard to the appointments. There is
reference here to the ex officio appointment, which is usually the director of
Labour Relations.
Is there
any change to the other appointments in regard to duration and how they're
replaced in the actual committee? Is it staggered or is there any adjustment to
those other appointments to the committee?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
answer: No, it's not. We have not looked at staggering that.
Mr.
Chair, if we look at the committee as it's now constituted, the terms of serving
are pretty much staggered as it is. Certainly, the only two, really, that are
not staggered at this particular point in time would be both of the arbitrators.
I think these positions as an arbitrator would – the expertise that the
arbitrators would have.
So the
continuity is still there in that we have a couple of positions that are going
to be vacant in 2018, a couple in 2019 and a couple in 2020. Even though I fully
understand your argument, the way in which the committee now is existing, will
give that turnover in a way in which the expertise will still be there.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Labour
Relations Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 16
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
committee rise and report Bill16.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
committee rise and report Bill16.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 16 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 16 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 17.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 17 be read
a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 17 entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2.”
(Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my
pleasure to rise in this hon. House to introduce debate on Bill 17. It's an
amendment to the Labour Relations Act
regarding the terms of the appointments of the Labour Relations Board. The bill
proposes that regular members be appointed to the Labour Relations Board for a
two-year period and the requirement that one regular member retire every year to
be removed from the act.
The
Labour Relations Board, Mr. Speaker, is established pursuant to section 6 of the
Labour Relations Act. It is a
quasi-judicial body which contributes to and promotes the harmonious labour
relations in this province. It adjudicates and mediates a variety of labour
relations matters. For example, the board investigates the duty of fair
representation complaints from union members, it certifies and decertifies
bargaining units and it determines appropriate bargaining units and hears unfair
labour practice complaints.
The
board, Mr. Speaker, consists of one chairperson, one or more vice-chair persons,
two regular members representing employers, two regular members representing
employees and as many alternate members equally representative of the employer
and employees as may be considered appropriate. These alternate members only
serve when regular members are unavailable.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, under the act the chairperson and vice-chairpersons are
appointed for a five-year term while the alternate members are appointed for
two-year terms; however, there is no prescribed term for regular board members.
As well, the act states that one regular employer member and one regular
employee member shall retire each year, as prescribed.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the issue and problem we have. An employer member or an employee
member could possibly be serving only one year, which is really not sufficient
time to even be briefed on what's necessary. As my hon. colleagues can
appreciate, the language surrounding these terms in section 6 of the act is
inconsistent as it relates to expirations, retirements and reappointments. It is
these inconsistencies that the amendments being proposed today, we will address,
Mr. Speaker.
The
amendments will ensure experienced members remain on the board to provide
continuity and consistency in decision making; the uninterrupted functioning of
the board will mitigate the need for constant retraining of regular board
members; a rotation of regular members with a prescribed term while maintaining
eligibility for reappointment and corporate experience; and the board can carry
on its legislative mandate and promote harmonious labour relations.
These
amendments do not increase costs to government. There is an appropriate
allocation within the existing budget to support the required per diem rates for
a full complement of board members. In addition, Mr. Speaker, for the
information of my hon. colleagues, members are remunerated at rates in keeping
with guidelines for rates of remuneration for agencies, boards and commissions.
As you
can see, Mr. Speaker, the amendments being proposed today in Bill 17 will
enhance the continuity and clarity and clarify the current language of the act
as it relates to expirations, retirements and reappointments.
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.
Once
again it's a pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of legislation, Bill 17,
An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act No. 2, the Labour Relations Board. The
minister just spoke about it and I'll have a few minutes to talk about it as
well actually. Again, it's one of those pieces of legislation where there's a
change in the terms for members on the Labour Relations Board for regular
members representing employers and regular members representing employees.
So the
bill basically makes amendments to the
Labour Relations Act regarding the terms and length of the Labour Relations
Board members. It will provide fixed terms of two years for regular members and
remove the requirement of one regular member, each of the employee and employer,
to retire each year.
The
minister just stated the Labour Relations Board is a tier one – it's an
Independent Appointment Commission board, appointed by the IAC, and of course
the three names are given to Cabinet to choose from. Presently, the Labour
Relations Board is made up of the following membership: the chairperson and one
or more vice-chairpersons. The current term length is five years for the chair
and vice-chairpersons and two years for alternate members, but the current act
does not prescribe a term of length for regular members.
Mr.
Speaker, this legislation is going to put two-year terms on regular members both
representing the employer and employees, which is all fine, I guess, but there
are a couple of things with that that I think is worthy of speaking on. One of
them being that under term-year terms, under these terms, basically Cabinet can
continue to support people of their choosing. We know how this stuff works. It's
the government in power; they're going to pick their supporters, their people,
to fill those terms for an endless period of time, as long as they're screened
by the Independent Appointments Commission. Mr. Speaker, I think we've been on
record many times over the last year or more about the IAC and our concerns with
that process.
Another
issue too, Mr. Speaker, if you have your four regular members on two-year terms,
so if they were just appointed for two-year terms in June, they started their
two-year terms in June, they'll expire at the same time. So you could have your
four regular members representing employers and employees leaving at the same
time. There comes a point of the corporate knowledge piece. The old rule was if
one were to retire, you'd always have someone there carrying the torch and know
the role and know the processes.
There is
a lot of value in that actually. Previously, some years back, I served for a
number of years on a board, a level tier-one board. I served six years actually,
two terms. We had new people coming and going, but you had a constant – one or
two of us remained there in that six-year term I was there to carry, someone new
coming in there – the corporate knowledge piece is very important, just the
processes and what to expect, how to deal with certain issues.
There is
nothing to replace the experience, and I think we can say that no matter what we
do in life, no matter what roles we do – I always felt the experience I had in
my previous life with the former minister, a Member from my district, boded well
for me, prepared me to take over as the MHA when I got elected and it's no
different than these boards. It's no difference in whatever you do. No matter
what job you take on in life, corporate knowledge and that continuation of
knowing how to do things, Mr. Speaker, can never be underestimated. I think
that's a very important piece and I don't know if the minister and his officials
give that a lot of consideration, but I think it's worthy.
When you
look at the Labour Relations Board, it's a very important service they provide
in our labour movement within the province. The Labour Relations Board, we don't
need to look no further than the current dispute in the last year that has been
in the news on a weekly basis, I guess, over our FFAW and the upstart union.
They're
waiting on decisions; they're sitting before this Labour Relations Board. The
decision of this board holds a lot to the future of both of those unions, and
many other things; but that's the most current, tangible thing that people could
relate to, it's the ongoing dispute that we're dealing with now.
Even
though this is considered to be somewhat of a routine matter, which it is, there
are a couple of cautionary things I just mentioned, about the fact of the
two-year term and who you can appoint for those two years, and the fact that
there's no corporate knowledge. I think those are two pieces – and I know the
minister's staff and his department prepared this legislation and I'm sure they
may have thought about that or gave that some consideration. I expect the
minister will provide me some commentary back to those concerns when he does get
up and speak.
If you
look at issues, those are the main two issues. Basically what the current act
does say is that one regular member representing employers and one regular
member representing employees would have to retire from the board each year.
That's old and that's what the current rules are.
This, in
practice, results in a high level of turnover and frequent training, in many
cases, that the newest member would retire and a long-standing member would sit
on the board for many years. I am not sure that falls into place when you got
someone retiring from the board each year. I would like the minister to probably
explain that to me as well.
This is
the problem we have, and that's why I think the corporate knowledge piece, if
you had a more – I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure what was wrong with the
former process. Maybe you need to fine-tune it a bit. If you had people falling
off after two or three years and you had a continuation of new people coming on,
with old and new mixture constantly, I think it would provide for a better,
stronger, more solid board that can make solid decisions.
The
learning curve is not so steep. I have spoken to people who have actually served
on this board, and the first few sessions were a bit of a learning curve, a
steep learning curve to a lot of those individuals. It took time for them to get
their feet under them to understand the process. It's no different than anything
else we do in life, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
would like to get some clarification from the minister on that. I think that,
outside of the other issue I had, but that issue to me is probably the biggest
concern I have.
Other
than that, I guess routine is a word we use a lot. It's not a huge change, but
it's one that I think I would like the minister to provide some clarification on
when he gets up to speak later.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Just a
couple of points on Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, No. 2.
Obviously, I am supporting this bill. It is a housekeeping bill. I don't mean
that in a derogatory way. Housekeeping is a good thing; we need good
housekeeping.
I
actually think the changes to the terms of the representatives, whether it is
the representatives of the employers or the representatives of employees, having
a two-year term and not having the way in which it was, you know everybody
having to step down partway through a second year term, with comings and goings
being quite frequent. This is what I understand has been the problem, is that we
don't have stability on the Labour Relations Board. I think what is being
proposed could lead to greater stability on the board. I think the minister did
mention that and it certainly seems that way to me.
Now the
people, when their two-year term is up, they do have to reapply through the IAC,
the Independent Appointments Commission, in order to be reappointed. I think
that's also a good thing because that means it's not taken for granted that
somebody just stays on the board.
I think
probably the one thing the legislation can't really get at – I wouldn't want to
see all four people appointed all at the same time for the two-year term because
you could have the possibility of everybody ending at the same time. It's the
one thing I have a question about, and maybe the minister could speak to that,
explain how that's going to be dealt with because that's exactly what could
happen.
You
could have two of the regular members representing employers and two of the
regular members representing employees all being appointed for two years all at
the same time, then all of them, after two years, having to reapply. That's the
one problem I'm seeing with this. I would like to see how the minister thinks
that's going to be dealt with because I think that's important. That could be
very problematic. You could say they're going to reapply and they'll get
reappointed, but you don't know that for sure.
While
you're not staggering with a rule about when they step down, I think you sort of
need to stagger by looking at when they are being appointed. It's the one thing
that gives me a bit of pause, and I would like the minister to give us an
explanation of that.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I'm only going to have a few words on this one, Bill 17. It's another act
to amend the Labour Relations Act, the
second one today. This one applies to the Labour Relations Board. Of course, the
last one was about the Labour Relations committee.
Basically, I guess the changes we're seeing here in terms of a board member,
previously you had – well, you still have, I think, two employers. You have a
chair, you have a vice-chair; you have two employee members on the board, you
have two employer members on the board.
I was a
little surprised. I would have been under the impression that in terms of the
people representing employees or the employers that they might have been
nominated by employer, employee groups. I think they can be, but I always sort
of felt it was the people appointed through the Employers' Council and so on, or
through the Federation of Labour. Basically, anybody, if they feel they fit in
the category of an employer or an employee, could apply to be on this board.
Currently, it says: of each of those two groups, one person has to be replaced
each year, but it doesn't have to be a different person. So, in theory, as it
currently stands, you could have two employer reps on the board and one person
can just stay indefinitely while the other position keeps rotating a new person
every single year. You could have one person representing the employer who's
there for 20 years and then you could have 20 people rotating through the other
employer rep and the same with the employee rep, which I'm not sure of the
rationale or why they did it that way. I guess they were looking to change
people over so it wasn't the same people there all the time. I'm not sure that
was necessarily the best way to do it.
In any
case, what is being suggested now is each of these people would be appointed for
a two-year term. After that two-year term, that individual could reapply through
the independent appointments committee, as I understand it, or the Independent
Appointments Commission, I believe is the right term. They could apply through
that process. Then that individual, along with two – well, not necessarily that
individual, but in theory if somebody was qualified enough to be on the Labour
Relations Board to begin with and now they're actually on that board serving,
they have the experience.
So one
would think if they applied for reappointment through the Independent
Appointments Commission, while it's no guarantee, one would think chances are
they would probably be one of those three names selected by the commission and
that would be forwarded to the minister. Then the minister can pick one of the
three, which could be that same person again.
Obviously, if you have somebody appointed and reappointed, they're gaining more
and more experience, more and more experience. I suppose, theoretically
speaking, as long as they continue to make that list of three through the
Independent Appointments Commission, one would think they would have a very good
chance of doing that. Then the minister can simply pick that person continuously
and that person can continue to serve over and over and over again and there
would be no change in that regard.
From my
perspective, I understand what's being done here, but I think it would have been
better to at least put a term on these individuals so, yes, if someone after two
years could apply again through that Independent Appointments Commission but if
they were reappointed for a second term or whatever, then that should be it and
then we should be changing out with new people. So it's not stagnant, it's not
the same people there all the time.
I also
agree with the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi in that I don't see
anything here – and perhaps, like I said, the minister will give some insight
into this, but there doesn't appear to be anything here that deals with the
staggering of appointments. Because again, in theory, as is written here,
without having the whole act in front of me, I guess the question is could you
appoint two employer reps, two employee reps and then they get reappointed after
two years or whatever and it's the same four people getting appointed or
reappointed over and over again, or if they all decided to leave then you have
four gone at the one time.
It might
have been a better idea if you had some kind of a term to say, like the last
piece of legislation, that someone could be appointed for two years, they could
be reappointed for a second term and then we would stagger the employer/employee
reps so that you had continuity but you also had some turnover so you wouldn't
run into a case of everybody gone at the one time.
That's
not addressed in this amendment but maybe it's already there in the bill itself
or in the act itself – I'm not 100 per cent certain, so I'd ask for some
clarification on that as the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi has. I
think that's a valid point.
As I
said, the only other issue, what I would have preferred and I think would be a
better idea is that if there was a term on these positions. In other words,
what's being proposed here, somebody gets appointed now for two years, they can
reapply to the Independent Appointments Commission, as long as they make that
list of three, which again one would think they would, or certainly it would be
in a good chance they would, then the minister could reappoint that person for a
further two years and then they could say I want to say another two years and
another two years and another two years, and in theory that person could be
there for the next 20 years. There would be no opportunity to change and so on.
That's
why like the other piece of legislation, that amendment we made to this very
same act where it set a term, in that case it was two three-year terms at a max.
Then I don't know why we wouldn't have a similar type provision here for the
actual Labour Relations Board members. It would have made more sense to me.
At the
end of the day, whether we make that change or the change that are being made,
what's being proposed here is certainly not going to make what's here any worse,
it probably makes more sense; but I think it could have been better, had we gone
that further step and put terms on the position. I would have liked to have seen
it, but whether it's there or not is not going to stop me from supporting it.
It's just that I think it would have been better if we'd have done it.
That's
my comments, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, we'll hear from the minister on that point
that's been raised by the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi and myself,
either here or in Committee of the Whole.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
If the
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now, he will
close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for me to close debate on Bill 17. I'd like to acknowledge
the Members opposite: the Member for Conception Bay South, the Leader of the
Third Party and the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands for their input into
this debate which is very, very important.
Just a
couple of short items I want to talk about before we go into Committee. I just
want to reference this one-year retirement clause. Originally, back in 1977 –
and it's never been changed since then, so I think it's high time that we look
at that because, again, the one year did not really give that continuity.
The
Member for Conception Bay South talked about whether there would be corporate
knowledge. I just want to make reference to that fact that, yes, there is
corporate knowledge to the degree in that all of the appointments that we make
now go through the Independent Appointments Commission and all of these
appointments are merit based. They are merit based. They go through the
screening from the commissioner and the commissioner and the committee determine
whether they fit the skill set that is necessary, unlike what has occurred in
the past, Mr. Speaker. So that's a significant change for us.
I want
to just say a big thank you to the Leader of the Third Party because what she
said is exactly how I feel as well when it came to staggering. I want to make
sure and ensure that we do have that capacity there and ability to have
staggering. Right now, Mr. Speaker, what we have in the present structure, we
have three members that came on in 2015 and three members that came on in 2017.
For the
Leader of the Third Party that is one of the things I want; the intent that I am
putting in place here is to make sure that we do have the staggering, because
what she says is exactly right. We don't want everybody leaving at the same
time; we want to have the ability to have the flexibility to have the knowledge
that we can share.
To the
Leader of the Third Party, and I think the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands
also mentioned it, within the legislation we will have that capacity to make
sure that the committee that we have will take care of that staggering
opportunities, and we will make sure that is there and certainly that will bring
to that particular Labour Relations Board that ability to not have everybody
leaving at the same time.
Mr.
Speaker, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17 and I am
certainly looking forward to discussion in Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 17 will now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Labour Relations Act No. 2. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the
hour of the day I move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that the House
do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.