May 23, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 23
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 10, An Act To Amend
The Schools Act, 1997 be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third 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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 15, An Act Respecting
Tenancies Of Residential Premises be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third 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 Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 16.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Court Security Act,
2010 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.” (Bill
16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Today,
we stand here in this House to debate Bill 16, which is an Act to Amend the
Court Security Act, 2010, which as you can see from its title, came into force
in 2010, actually on October 1.
Basically, this legislation is the statutory basis on which sheriff's officers
provide security for a significant portion of our court facilities, whether it's
the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court or Provincial Court. This legislation allows
them to handle the security program within these facilities.
It deals
with methods of screening, it deals with access to restricted areas,
authorization to relieve individuals of weapons, prevent them from entering a
courthouse or court areas if they do not comply, and it also makes an offence
for anybody but authorized personnel to possess a weapon in a court area, to
enter such an area after being refused entry and to refuse to leave a court area
after being asked to do so.
When we
talk about courts in general, and I've spent a fair bit of time in most of the
courts in the province, and depending on the level of court, security can be an
issue. Courts are places often filled with emotion and high emotion. If you look
at our unified family court over on Kings Bridge Road and, again, depending on
the jurisdiction, family court is something that, depending on where you are, if
you're in Labrador or Central, it has dual jurisdiction in that it's Supreme
Court or Provincial. On the West Coast and here on the Avalon, it's governing by
our Trial Division, our Supreme Court as it's now referred.
Family
court is something that has a tremendous amount of emotion. When we look at
Provincial Court especially, or recently in Supreme Court where we've had an
explosion really in the number of jury trials. These are places filled with –
when you look at the subject matter we're dealing with, it's emotion on all
sides. It's difficult.
That's
why we do have the need for security in these buildings. Unfortunately, I've
seen situations where there's been hostility, tense moments and I've seen,
unfortunately, members of our court security be assaulted at times. It can be an
extremely difficult place to work.
I think
this is the right juncture. This is my first time speaking to Court Security in
the House. I wasn't around in 2010, but what I would say is this is an
opportunity for me to say thank you to our sheriff's officers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
They are tremendous men and
women who, again, all over this province, who have very tough jobs. I've had an
opportunity to meet with them on a number of occasions.
We have
a High Sheriff, a gentleman named Dan Chafe, who's been on the job for about
three years or so now, who I think has done a tremendous job. He's working with
a group of people that really handle very trying circumstances, handle people at
the height, or the depths, of their emotions, we'll say. It's a trying
environment. The need for security, I think, is crucial; it's important and we
recognize that.
The
purpose of the amendment that we're making here today, which when you look at it
is not significant in terms of the number of sections that are being amended,
but it's a change that basically we're expanding the definition of a court area
to include a building, a part of a building, land or space used by an inquiry.
So when
this was first brought in we dealt with courtrooms, but we all know – and it's
not just something that we've been dealing with recently – inquiries are events
that have been happening for some time. In many cases, inquiries are dealt with,
not in court space, but often in space that's outside of a court but it really
is a court-like atmosphere.
It often
has the presence of a judge, staff, lawyers, witnesses and can often be tense.
You look back through our history at the subject matter that we've done
inquiries in, these are things that people have a high emotional connection to.
In many cases, we're dealing with tragedy. People can have a very strong opinion
one way or the other, and that's fine.
What
we're discussing here today is an amendment that will, basically – it's also
going to have a House, I guess, clean-up provision here, where recently we made
changes to our Court of Appeal to allow it to be its own division.
So what
we're doing is replacing all the references to Trial Division with Supreme
Court. There's a little clean-up section there. So under paragraph 2(a) court
now means the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, where before it may have said Supreme Court, Appeal
Division and Trial Division.
The
other thing is that we're changing paragraph 2(b) to discuss what a court area
encompasses. This is just basically adding a section there that says any
building, space or land that is used by a court or inquiry and designated as a
court area or regulation. Then we further go into what an inquiry means. An
“'inquiry' means a commission of inquiry established under Part 1 of the
Public Inquiries Act, 2006 or an
inquiry conducted under Part II of the
Public Inquiries Act, 2006.”
So what
this is, is we had a request come in from Justice LeBlanc and his team, which
was, we know where the inquiry's being held. They wanted to specifically have
the provision of security provided by the sheriff's officers, which I think is a
tremendous vote of confidence for these individuals.
Having
security at an inquiry is certainly not an issue that I have any problem with. I
think that we have to do everything to ensure that our inquiries proceed on an
orderly basis and that security is protected for all. Again, this inquiry will
be no different than the others in the sense that it is something that has a
significant amount of public interest.
We have
a number of opinions in many cases. Certainly, we're not dealing with a loss of
life as we've had to deal with in other inquiries, but this is something that
holds a significant amount of importance as it relates to just about every
individual in this province. There's a lot of public discussion about it and
there's probably going to be a lot of public interest – again, people going into
this space.
During
this process, Justice LeBlanc and his team indicated that they wanted the
provision of security to be done by sheriff's officers. The High Sheriff, Mr.
Chafe, indicated that this would not be an issue. There was money allotted for
this and allowed under the budget to ensure that we had the presence of security
provided by the sheriff's officers at this inquiry.
The
reason that we're not just saying a particular space is that this inquiry will
have meetings not only here in St. John's, but also in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
and the sheriff's officers will be on site in both locations. In order to
facilitate or to allow that, we need to make a change to this act to allow for
sheriff's officers to provide their services. As I've outlined earlier, what the
act already does, in order to allow them to do this at an inquiry or in a
non-court space, we had to add an inquiry to that definition.
So it's
a pretty simple amendment that we're making here. I think I've indicated the
reasons why we're doing this. This was upon the request of Justice LeBlanc. I
thank him and his staff for taking on this really significant task for the
people of this province. I mean, this is not something that – it's a long-term
commitment and there's a significant amount of work that's already gone in and
we haven't even started the hearing process. We announced the inquiry back in
November and we know that the work is going to go on up to or before December
31, 2019.
We know
that it's the commissioner's intention to conduct public hearings starting
sometime, they figure, in September 2018 up to June 2019. We know the inquiry is
located here in St. John's and they will be holding public hearings in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay at a space that's undetermined as of yet. Wherever that space
is going to be will be covered off by the amendment that we're making here
today.
Without
this legislative authority, the inquiry would have to go out and retain private
security services and they would not have the same authority that sheriff's
officers carry under the Court Security
Act, which is again one of the
reasons that we're making this amendment here today.
Having
the ability to use reasonable force to remove a person that may cause a
disturbance or refuse entry and to rely on police, they would have to rely on
police. So not only would you have security but you also have to have, possibly,
the provision of police. We have people that handle security. We trust their
decisions, we trust their discretion and we trust their ability to do
assessments and analysis of each situation.
Also,
sheriff's officers in this province are not issued fire arms, but they do wear
vests, have batons, OC spray and stuff like this. They have different
authorities and powers that are not conveyed to private security, plus whatever
the cost would be for private security to do something like this.
I think
the main point that I want to stress here is this was the request that came from
the commissioner. This was something that the commissioner wanted. It seems to
me a reasonable request. Each commissioner will make decisions as to how their
inquiry will proceed. In this case, there was a request to have sheriff's
officers do this. In order to facilitate that, we are here in this House today
to discuss this amendment to the Court Security Act, which certainly we will be
supporting. We will do everything in our power to ensure that this inquiry not
only happens, as we've called it, but we want to make sure that it happens in a
timely fashion and with the people and the participants that are involved
feeling that they are secure at all times during this very important work that
they are doing.
On that
note, I look forward to the debate and to the Committee stage. Hopefully, I can
answer questions as they come in.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise to speak to Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Court Security Act,
2010. The minister has taken us through some of the rationale for the particular
amendment, the allowance for the amendment and what it would involve, and
certainly the authority or the direction now that would be given to the
sheriff's officers in regard to providing security services.
In
addition to what they currently do related to the court facilities, the act does
define or redefine the court area meaning a building, part of a building, land
or space used by a court or inquiry and designated as a court area by
regulation. Regulation means that following this amendment, regulations will be
drawn up and approved by the Executive Council related to that definition of the
court area.
The
minister said when he introduced the amendment – he spoke to the request from
Justice LeBlanc and he related it to the upcoming inquiry, and a means to
provide security services in that particular environment. From my understanding
of what he said, that came directly from Justice LeBlanc.
While
that may have precipitated the discussion we're having here today, this is more
broad reaching, I guess, than that particular inquiry. It would be all future
inquiries and as well would be anything related to the court area as defined in
the amendment and would be further defined with regulations that come in at some
point in time.
Maybe
the minister could speak to that – we'll probably ask a couple of questions when
we get to Committee in regard to that and what his vision is in those
regulations and further defining the court area as suggested in the amendment.
The bill
also changes the phrase “Trial Division” to “Supreme Court,” in line with the
changes made by the Court of Appeal Act
previously amended. As was talked about, the sheriff's officers can only
provide security at services to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and
Provincial Court. This is asking, through this amendment, to expand their role
and the security services they would provide in particular environments as
related to an inquiry where they may not always be stationary or in one
location. There could be activities right around the province in regard to
hearings or engagement sessions to deal with the general public on a particular
topic or a particular inquiry.
So what
this is suggesting is that in those cases that security service through the
sheriff's officer would be provided and would be part of that inquiry and part
of the commissioner at the time who's appointed to oversee the security of
particular happenings of that inquiry.
I know
in the briefing there was indications that the use of sheriff's officers in
previous inquiries has been inconsistent. So it would be good, too, in Committee
if we heard from the minister what's transpired in the past in regard to the
services that were provided. What were the difficulties with that? What were the
challenges with that? While there's a request coming from Judge LeBlanc, it
certainly would be nice to hear what we're transitioning from to get to this
amendment we're talking about here today. What were some of the challenges that
were experienced in the past? How were they dealt with? How some of those
challenges could be certainly improved or not received based on the amendment we
got here and what we're talking about in this particular amendment.
I think
the minister talked about budgeting. Obviously, there's additional time
allotted, human resources for an activity like this related to an inquiry. I
think he indicated that the Sheriff's Office indicated that budgeting was
allocated or it's within their capacity to do that. Any amendments or any
regulatory change that affects human resources, it's always important that
there's some discussion on the ability to finance that, where that financing
needs to come from and what the cost is predicted to be; recognizing, obviously,
that this is related to one inquiry. You may be able to estimate what costs
would be for this particular inquiry based on travel, based on the number of
days that the Commissioner expects to sit. In some fiscal year, if there was an
inquiry or some other activity that's outside the norm that required the
security services, it may be something at that particular time would have to be
dealt with, because it may not have been predicted in a fiscal year that it
would occur.
As well,
there was discussion about the fact that it's been requested, the security
services. In the past, if inquiries were used, there would have been a
requirement to do it through private security firms. There was some discussion
too from the minister about the authority and the power of the sheriff's
officers and what they can exercise in their activities as opposed to a private
security firm and what they would be able to do and what their authority would
allow them to do.
What I
understand from the minister is that recognizing the request, recognizing the
power of the sheriff's officers, you're suggesting they would be best suited to
deal with the particular request that's been asked for here. Obviously, it's in
accordance with the judicial system and the role that the sheriff's officers now
play and then expanding that to inquiries by a Supreme Court judge that would
oversee as Commissioner, an inquiry.
The
conduit for the security services from the Sheriff's Office obviously would be
consistent in this case. If you went outside and had to hire a private security
firm you get into – certainly, reasonably to get into issues of experience,
experiences of that firm dealing with this particular environment. Obviously a
sheriff's officer, I guess you could assume would have that continuity in terms
of the type of security, the environment and the things that may or may not be
encountered.
From the
environment point of view in terms of the reason for this, at times, as was
mentioned, emotions could run high. I guess one issue we need to discuss and
talk about is the right for people to express their concerns whether in protest
or some other means, but as long as that doesn't infringe on processes and the
function or activity at the time and is in keeping with normal protocol in
regard to demonstrations and those types of things. I think what this talks
about is a unique situation, just to ensure that security is maintained in an
environment that's been suggested.
We'll
have some questions for the minister when we go through Committee, just on some
of the references in the amendment, particularly related to the court area and
is referenced by regulation, how that would be defined. As well, if there are
any thoughts outside of an inquiry, where this security services may be
required. Taking into account the new definition of court and court area, well
particular court area where there would be other incidents where it could be
foreseen that these services would be required and would have to be executed
based on an inquiry, but based on any other activity that may be foreseen that
would require this type of security.
We'll
look forward to hearing further debate, and certainly look forward to going into
Committee and asking a few questions in regard to the amendment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We are,
as stated by my colleagues, debating –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Bill 16.
MS. ROGERS:
– Bill 16, the Court Security
Act. Thank you very much.
It's An
Act to Amend the Court Security Act. The bill amends the Court Security Act
to expand the definition of a court area to include a building, part of a
building, land or space used by an inquiry. I'd like to thank the good folks
from the Department of Justice who prepared us and gave us a briefing on this
bill.
It's an interesting time to receive the request to amend
this bill. From what we hear from the Minister of Justice, in fact the request
to have the Sheriff's Office provide the security for the inquiry on Muskrat
Falls came from the Commissioner, from Justice LeBlanc. I would imagine he made
an assessment and with his assessment decided that this is the way he would like
to be able to proceed with his inquiry by engaging the Sheriff's Office. Now we
don't know from either the briefing or what has been said to date, whether that
means a constant presence of sheriff's officers during the inquiry but we will
be able to ask the minister that.
The amendment to the bill replaces all references to Trial
Division with Supreme Court. Officials within the department confirm that the
commissioner of the Muskrat Falls inquiry has requested that security for the
Muskrat Falls inquiry and that it be conducted by the Sheriff's Office. We know
we can rely on the personnel of the Sheriff's Office. They
are well trained; they have a very clear mandate. They have been doing court
security for years. It's a very well-oiled machine. We can trust their expertise
and their skills. In many ways it makes sense that should security be required
for inquiries, that, in fact, it makes sense that we would have the Sheriff's
Office provide that security.
The
Court Security Act legislates the role of the Sheriff's Office in providing
court security. The act makes it an offence – we know within court buildings the
act makes it an offence to have a weapon in a court area, enter a court area
after being refused entry and refusing to leave a court area after being told
to.
That's
so important, Mr. Speaker, in our courts where very important business is
undertaken on behalf of the whole concept of justice in our province. Often in a
court proceeding, it's intense what happens at trial. It's very intense what
happens in our court area. Sometimes that's also the case in the inquiries.
The
current Sheriff's Office operates in Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and
Provincial Court. This amendment adds public inquiries as defined under the
Public Inquiries Act, 2006 to the
definition of court areas under the Court Security Act. That means wherever the
business of an inquiry is taking place that can be considered the same as a
court area. It expands the mandate and the ability of the Sheriff's Office to
provide security for work that's being undertaken on behalf of the people of the
province.
When
providing security, private firms have to call the police for issues; whereas
under this amendment, any public inquiry can request the services of the
Sheriff's Office to provide security.
There's
also a housekeeping amendment in this bill. That replaces the words Trial
Division with Supreme Court, which is in keeping with recent passing of the
Court of Appeal legislation which we handled and dealt with a little over a
month ago here in the House.
There
hasn't appeared to have been any real pressing need for additional security at
the most recent public inquiries. Also inquiries where there were issues that
would have been very intense, when we had the inquiry in the shooting death of
Mr. Dunphy.
One
would have thought there would have been a request for security and that because
of the public outcry and the protests that happened around that area. What's
really important, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe Justice LeBlanc's request has
come from a base of knowledge and in order to be able to fulfill the work that
he's been asked to do on behalf of the people.
We must
ensure that the public spaces of an inquiry are not foreboding, that they're not
difficult to access. When we look at what has happened with Muskrat Falls, the
frustration level of the people of the province is so high. It's so high because
of the way Muskrat Falls was rammed through our House of Assembly, the way
decisions were made, the way the previous administration took Muskrat Falls out
from under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board where they ignored
much of the Environmental Impact Statement.
People
are already very, very frustrated and feel so shut out of the process of
mandating Muskrat Falls. We have to make sure, Mr. Speaker, it's the very reason
that we have an inquiry, because of the people's dissatisfaction with how
Muskrat Falls was sanctioned. We have to ensure the inquiry is an open process
where the people of the province feel welcomed, where the people of the province
are not intimidated, where there is no atmosphere whatsoever of foreboding or
prohibition that would give the people of the province any feeling whatsoever
that they are not welcomed into the space where the inquiry is happening.
This is
a public inquiry that is brought about because of the mishandling of the Muskrat
Falls file and the mishandling of the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls. It's really
important that everything is done to make that space open, accessible and
welcoming, and that it proves that there will be accountability and transparency
in every step of the way that this inquiry is undertaken.
We
learned in Estimates, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had spent over $8.9 million in
protecting the movement of transformers destined for the Muskrat Falls Project –
$8.9 million and possibly more. All of that will be charged to the province, all
of that the people's money. There are many in the area in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
and areas where they felt totally intimidated by the abundance of RCMP officers,
of police in their communities. There were no incidents, there was no threat.
We have
to be careful, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to be judicious about the types of
security that are needed, particularly around the area of Muskrat Falls, around
the issue of Muskrat Falls. We must be very, very cautious to protect that
atmosphere of openness and welcome. That's what's at risk here. It is my hope
that Justice LeBlanc and his team will choose to have the presence of the
sheriff's officers as a way to ensure a smooth operation, as a way to ensure the
people of the province are welcomed to all spaces where the inquiry is
undertaken. If not, then it perpetuates once again the missteps that we have
seen, almost the injustice that we have seen in the sanctioning and the ramming
through of Muskrat Falls on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to asking questions in Committee about the specific details of the
intention of how the Sheriff's Office will be used, at what times, under what
circumstances or whether it will be continuous during every process of the
inquiry. I haven't heard about any incidents so far in any of the operations of
the inquiry whether or not there have been any threats. I believe that if
security is required, to use the Sheriff's Office is the appropriate security to
use because they are well trained, because they are hired by the people of the
province to ensure safe and smooth operations of anything that relates to
justice.
I will
take my seat, Mr. Speaker. My concern is to ensure a spirit of openness, of
welcoming is always present in every aspect of the inquiry on the issue of
Muskrat Falls.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity once again to speak and this time to Bill 16, An
Act to Amend the Court Security Act.
Mr.
Speaker, I could, for the most part, just say ditto to what the Member for St.
John's Centre just said. I will, for the record I suppose, just convey my own
thoughts, although they're very similar if not identical to what the Member just
said really.
Obviously, what we're doing here is we're going to be allowing for the sheriff's
officers to provide security at not just the Muskrat Falls inquiry but all
future inquires. It would give the ability for the Department of Justice, when
we have inquires in the future, to actually have the sheriff's officers present
providing security services. Now, obviously, the impetus for this is the Muskrat
Falls inquiry and a request from Commissioner LeBlanc. If we're going to have
security it does make sense that it would be the Sheriff's Office, given the
fact that the Sheriff's Office is already providing security at the courts as we
know.
All
we're doing in this bill, of course, is we're going to define a court area –
make an amendment, we're going to define a court area meaning a building, part
of a building, land, space used by a court or inquiry and designated as a court
area by regulation. In other words, we can now say that if we're having an
inquiry and that inquiry is not taking place in an actual courthouse – they rent
a building somewhere or property somewhere to hold that inquiry – then that
would be designated a court area; therefore, the sheriff's officers could be
used as security.
My
understanding is they would simply be there to screen people – and this is how I
understand it, I guess the minister will clarify – as they're coming in. As I
understand it, we were told they would have those metal detectors like they have
at the courthouse now, like we have here in the House of Assembly that people
would walk through. Attached to that metal detector will be some sort of an
X-ray machine for bags to go through to make sure there are no weapons concealed
in a bag or whatever. Once people get inside the inquiry space, then the
sheriffs would be there to maintain order and to ensure that nobody acts
inappropriately or bursts out into some kind of violent rage or whatever the
case might be, and to remove individuals if necessary.
Of
course, by having the sheriff's officers there as opposed to a private security
firm, the sheriff's officers would actually have the ability to sort of take the
matter, a hands-on approach, if it was deemed necessary, to deal a violent
individual and so on if that were to happen.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, that in principle and in general I certainly support the
concept of having security at our courts. I support the concept of having
security here at this House of Assembly. I support the concept of having
security at an inquiry because it is very important that when we have these
public proceedings that people can go, they can participate, and they can feel
comfortable – all parties can feel comfortable that their health and safety are
not going to be placed in jeopardy.
We know
that there are people out there, for whatever reason, that could be a threat.
That's reality. There are people out there that could be a threat to the health,
safety and security of people involved in a court proceeding or involved in an
inquiry such as this. It's important that we put measures in place to ensure
that everybody is safe. That's what this is about; it's about safety. I support
that 100 per cent.
With
that said, I would agree again with my colleague from St. John's Centre that we
know that there are a lot of people who have very strong views as it relates to
this particular inquiry, certainly all inquiries, with strong views I'm sure
with the ER/PR or with the Dunphy inquiry and so on. The Muskrat Falls inquiry,
we have seen protests and different things that have occurred. And I can
understand where there would be a fear that somebody could just go in there and
put the place up. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.
By the
same token we also need to ensure that – and this is the only piece where I see
a little bit of concern is when it says court area means a building, part of a
building, land and space used by the court. My only concern would be, and I
would hope that when we're talking land and space – say if the Labrador Land
Protectors or people who are supportive of it decided that they were going to
hold a little protest, vigil, rally – call it what you will – outside of the
building, and assuming that they are not destroying property or threatening
people but they are just having a peaceful protest, I would hope that the
sheriff's officers are not going to come and kick them off the property, or tell
them that they don't have the right to free speech and so on.
Now, I'm
sure that's not the intent, I'm sure it's not. But where it says land, so it's
not specific to just inside that inquiry space, inside that building, it says
the land. As long as people are assembling peacefully, I would just hope and
assume that if they want to hold a rally or whatever they want to do, to have
their opinions heard on the matter that we're not going to shut down free
speech. I'm sure the minister has no intentions of doing that. I'm not
suggesting he does. I'm sure he doesn't actually, but the way it's written that
someone could conclude that, I suppose, potentially.
Barring
that, as long as the inquiry is open to the public – and it should be open for
any member of the public to be able to go and listen to the proceedings and so
on. I understand that will be the case. As long as people can come in and have
that ability and they're not going to be hampered in any way, they're not going
to be harassed, they're not going to be intimidated and all that kind of stuff,
which I'm sure they're not, then I see no problem whatsoever in having security
there to make sure everybody is safe. Because that's what it's about, it's about
the safety of all, regardless what side of the coin you may fall on in terms of
the Muskrat Falls inquiry, whether you're pro-Muskrat, anti-Muskrat, whatever
your issues may be, it's about providing a safe space for everybody.
If that
would appear to be the intent of this, and with that in mind, I have some
questions that I just sort of indicated and they're similar to what my other
colleagues have raised. Perhaps they'll get to it in Committee before I do and I
won't need to ask questions; that's fine enough. But as long as those two
principles are there, focus on safety but, by the same token, allowing open
access for people and not trying to trample people's rights and that fair
balance is there and it's done properly, then I have no issue with it
whatsoever.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the commentary from my colleagues across the way. I'm sure they'll
have questions during Committee stage, which I'll try my best to answer. In
regard to the one point, I will try my best to address it now while it's fresh,
is the commentary from the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – just a couple
of points. I believe that the reason that you would have land and space, not
only would it be a legislative term to make sure that we cover off everything,
but I would assume that part of inquiry space is the ability to get into said
inquiry space. I don't think there was any thought process behind somebody
having their Charter rights infringed in relation to assembly, free speech and
whatnot, but everybody also has a right to get to these spaces. I understand
where the Member is going, so I think I've covered that off. That's why the
terminology would be as it is.
The
second part, I just want to correct him because he said – I know he didn't mean
it this way, but again, we are doing this on the record and somebody might look
back and the Member said I don't believe the minister would do that. What we
need to understand is that the commission is independent. I have no say in how
this commission of inquiry is going to proceed. It was handed over to Justice
LeBlanc. He and his team are now in charge. What we are doing here today is
bringing forward legislation that will cover off a request that's been made for
this inquiry or some inquiry down the road.
As it
relates to the security requirements of this inquiry or any of the procedures of
this inquiry that would fall upon the commissioner, what we are doing is
facilitating a request to allow for the security for this inquiry and going
forward.
On that
note, I'll move on to the Committee stage.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010,” 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 and Community Services, 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 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.'
This
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 Court Security Act, 2010.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Court Security Act, 2010.” (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.
Just for
the minister, I wonder if he could comment on the definition “'court area' means
a building, part of a building, land or space used by a court” or inquiry “and
designated as a court area by regulation.”
Obviously, security now ties to services related to court facilities. This is an
exercise in attaching it to inquiries. Does he foresee any other area where
there could be expansion in these services or is this just, in his view, tied to
commission of inquiry and the space that would be involved today and in the
future?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
There's
no intention, that's been identified to me, that this would be applied
elsewhere. This was specifically a request that's come in. Now what I can say,
because I think this was brought up earlier, sheriff's officers have been used
at inquires in the past but there's no rule basically as to what's been done.
I think
in the past there's been police presence; there have been officials with
Transportation and Works presence; there can be private security presence, and
there's been sheriff's presence. In this case, since the
Court Security Act, 2010 came in where we designate court areas and
we've had the request come in now for sheriff's officers to be used, that's why
we needed to change court area.
Again,
going forward, it's up to the commissioner of any inquiry to figure out how they
want to run that and security presence that would be put in place. This would
cover that off into the future.
If there
was some other request that came in as it relates to any security in any court
facility, I'm always willing to hear that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A
question in regard to the financing and the funds to cover such services; I
think the minister in his commentary in debate mentioned about funds were
already available.
Would
there be, in the future, allocations of funds of a line item for this service or
would you expect that it would be covered off in current budget of an annual
basis in a fiscal year?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
This particular cost was
covered off. It is $89,340 to cover off three officers for which there were the
human resources that were available. This would be covered off under the inquiry
budget.
When
they do up the inquiry they come forward with a proposed budget, and this would
be a very small portion of that cost. Usually it's: what is the technology cost?
What is the legal cost? What is the salary cost, and everything else? This would
be something that would be put into – this was already allotted for. They had
anticipated security costs. Going forward, it depends on how much security they
would want to avail of depending on the inquiry.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to ask the minister: Does he know whether or not this is a continuous presence
of security at the inquiry, or is it periodic? Does he have any idea of that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
That
would be a decision of the commissioner. I haven't specifically had that
indicated. My guess is it would be continuous. Any time that it is open to the
public their presence would be there, whether it's in Labrador or here in St.
John's. That's my guess. That would be a better question for the commissioner.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I ask
the minister: Would this require any new hires for the Sheriff's Office?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No. The High Sheriff has
indicated they have sufficient human resources to handle this so that there were
no hires necessary.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the
commission of inquiry meets in Happy Valley-Goose Bay would they be using
sheriff's officers who are already in Happy Valley-Goose Bay or would there be a
contingent that would travel with them?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would be a decision of
the High Sheriff, but I would hope they would have the resources in Labrador to
cover this just to save on the travel costs that would be there. It would be a
much more cost-effective move to have it done in Labrador. My understanding is
that won't be an issue but that will be a Dan Chafe question.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Clause 2.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 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 Court Security Act, 2010.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 16.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 16.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay and 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 16 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?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
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 move, from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading
of Bill 18.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources,
that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now read a second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, be now
read a second time.
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 18, which
is An Act To Amend The Corporations Act. All of us have a role to play in
increasing immigration to Newfoundland and Labrador, ensuring that more
newcomers choose to settle in this province and build a brighter future for
themselves, our communities and the province.
Our government, Mr. Speaker, is focused on ensuring
that Newfoundland and Labrador become a destination of choice for immigrants and
their families, while also encouraging Newfoundlanders and Labradorian abroad to
move back home. In The Way Forward: A
vision for sustainability and growth in Newfoundland and Labrador a
provincial government committed, our government committed to developing a
five-year plan to increase immigration by 50 per cent and welcoming
approximately 1,700 immigrants annually by 2022.
Collaboration, engagement and partnership are integral
to the immigration action plan in recognition that all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians play a role in immigrant attraction and retention. We must
strengthen community partnerships and maximize pathways to immigration, improve
immigration retention and celebrate the multiculturalism and diversity of our
province.
Working towards the goals of increasing immigration and
strengthening our economy, Mr. Speaker, I'm in the process of expanding
the Provincial Nominee
Program to include two new business immigration categories under our Provincial
Nominee Program, and they are the international entrepreneur and the
international graduate entrepreneur.
The
Provincial Nominee Program allows Newfoundland and Labrador to nominate
applicants who qualify under provincially established criteria for permanent
resident status. It does this, Mr. Speaker, by offering a quicker immigration
process for qualified skilled workers, international graduates and their
families who wish to settle permanently in Newfoundland and Labrador, and
offering assistance from provincial program officers who are able and available
to explain the program requirements and the processes.
The
objectives of introducing business immigration categories support an advanced
entrepreneurship and innovation in the province. They support labour market
growth. They assist in advancing the province's business innovation agenda. They
strengthen the province's ties to the global economy and they grow the
province's economy and help address demographic challenges.
While I
make further descriptions, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour, we've had discussions. It became clear in our discussions
that for the program to fully meet potential in increasing immigration and
business activity the Corporations Act,
which is administered by Service NL, should be amended to allow participants in
the new categories to more easily incorporate a business.
Mr.
Speaker, incorporating a business provides additional legal protections that a
sole proprietorship does not have. The act of incorporating creates a new legal
entity which has broader rights and obligations under Canadian law. Such an
entity can act to acquire assets, obtain a loan, enter into contracts, sue or be
sued and can even be found guilty of committing a crime.
Incorporation limits the liability of a corporation's shareholders. Corporations
are taxed separately from their owners. This means that individuals may gain
certain fiscal advantages by incorporating, especially if revenues pass a
certain point.
Also,
raising money is often easier for corporations than it is for other forms of
business. For example, a corporation would have the option of issuing bonds and
share certificates to investors. Corporations are also often able to borrow
money at lower rates than the rates offered to other types of businesses.
Service
NL maintains a registry of companies which can be accessed through the Companies
and Deeds Online or CADO, for short. Corporations are required to provide the
annual filings and you can look up any company on the CADO to determine if they
are in good standing and being compliant. Sole proprietorship and partnerships
are not required to be listed in the registry.
As the
legislation currently stands, temporary residents are not eligible to
incorporate a business on their own, as at least 25 per cent of directors must
be Canadians as defined by the act. Similar to Newfoundland and Labrador's
existing requirements, the federal government as well as Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Ontario require that a minimum of 25 per cent of the directors of a
corporation be residents of Canada. Other jurisdictions are considering whether
to introduce a similar residency requirement.
The
federal government, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario qualify the minimum
number of directors required to be Canadian residents when the number of
directors is four or less. In these instances, at least one director must be a
Canadian resident. Therefore, participants in the program would not be able to
incorporate on their own or with other participants without seeking out resident
Canadians to serve as directors.
Mr.
Speaker, this can be difficult as, oftentimes, immigrants do not have ties to
resident Canadians willing to act as a director. From a regulatory perspective,
the residency requirement is key to reduce the potential of fraud, negligence,
flight risk and increase accountability. If directors are resident Canadians
under the act, there are likely to be local assets from which judgments can be
satisfied.
Given,
Mr. Speaker, the regulatory concerns, I propose to broaden the incorporation
abilities only as far as necessary. This will be done by expanding the
definition of resident Canadian to include those persons that participating in
the international entrepreneur and international graduate entrepreneur
categories under the Provincial Nominee Program. Any participant removed from
the program would cease to be a resident Canadian under the act.
In order
to further mitigate any risk, participants and business operations in the
program would be robustly monitored by the Department of Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour for regulatory purposes and performance monitoring. After
careful consideration of the monitoring mechanisms that we'd be putting in
place, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to present Bill 18, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act, to the House today to have continued second reading on that.
Mr.
Speaker, this is important for us as a government moving forward to make sure
that these amendments are necessary in order for us to move forward our
categories under the Provincial Nominee Program. Our government is working
closely with our federal partners to introduce two new categories under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. These categories are
international graduate entrepreneur and the international entrepreneur.
Introducing these two new categories under the Provincial Nominee Program is a
key commitment in The Way Forward on
immigration for Newfoundland and Labrador, the province's collaborative,
partnership-driven Immigration Action Plan.
During
public and stakeholder consultations on the development of the Immigration
Action Plan, we heard from the business community and international students
that introducing these two new categories will help us retain international
graduates who want to stay in the province.
It only
makes sense to do whatever we can to enable international graduates to invest
what they have learned right here in this province. In many cases, Mr. Speaker,
these international graduates have already been living in Newfoundland and
Labrador for several years – four or more, depending on their degree. They have
established their lives here, they have friends and they're involved in groups
and activities in their communities. We have heard many times that these
international graduates want to stay right here in this province, they want to
work here, they want to build their lives here, but right now their options are
limited.
Mr.
Speaker, I have spoken to many of these international graduates and I might add
that right now, Memorial University, for example, is depending on roughly about
16 per cent of the students at Memorial University who are international
students, and one-third of our students at Memorial are actually international
and Canadian from other provinces in Canada. So we're seeing a significant
number of international students who are choosing Memorial University, the
College of the North Atlantic and, in fact, some of our private training
institutions to further their education.
Introducing the international graduate entrepreneur and the international
entrepreneur categories will give them a pathway to permanent residency right
here in this province. The amendments to Bill 18 are an important step in our
work with the federal government to establish these new categories in
Newfoundland and Labrador. These amendments update the
Corporations Act to allow individuals
in these two categories to incorporate a business in this province.
Currently, temporary residents are not eligible to incorporate a business on
their own because 25 per cent of the corporations founding board of directors
must be made up of permanent residents or Canadian citizens. International
graduates and entrepreneurs often do not have ties to resident Canadians that
are willing to act as a director.
These
amendments will remove that barrier for individuals who are in Newfoundland and
Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. It will treat a participant in the program
as a resident Canadian for the purpose of being on a board, thereby more easily
meeting the 25 per cent requirement.
The
benefits of making this change are significant. Bill 18 will lead our
government's efforts to grow the provincial workforce and the economy. The
amendments will make it easier for international students and entrepreneurs to
establish themselves, create businesses and jobs in our province. All of us have
a role to play in increasing immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want
more newcomers to settle in the province and to build a brighter future for
themselves, for our communities and for our province.
I am
pleased to remind my hon. colleagues that 25 of the 39 initiatives of the
five-year Immigration Action Plan were initiated or implemented by the end of
2017-18 fiscal year. We established the minister's round table on immigration,
which held its inaugural meeting on February 7, 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, nearly 50 members of the round table include representative employers,
labour, community organizations and other stakeholders. We have two additional
round tables that will be held in 2018, with the next coming up in the very near
future.
Mr.
Speaker, it gave me, as minister, a great opportunity to sit around that table,
and those tables, and to get a feedback from stakeholders, from front-line
workers, from employers and from the labour to identify some of the concerns
that they had as new immigrants to this province. It was through these
discussions and the direction that was given that we felt it was important as a
government and as a department to ensure that we are positioning our province to
take advantage of all possible opportunities for immigration to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We also
established an interdepartmental committee on immigration, which facilities
better information sharing and collaboration between departments. We want to
make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do this right. The way in which we can do this
to ensure that we're getting the best results is to engage in the discussions
that we continue to have across departments.
This
committee has met twice, to date, and discussed a number of priority areas for
collaboration. This includes a focus on hiring skilled immigrants for hard-
to-fill positions and initiatives to promote diversity and multiculturalism in
the public service. Other ongoing initiatives include improving immigration
application processing, providing supply to third parties to deliver settlement
and integration services and supports, and enhancing and expanding our
immigration websites. Our government has also made significant progress in
providing support to third parties to deliver settlement services and support to
newcomers.
All of
these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, lead us into the two categories that we're going
to be including in our new Provincial Nominee Program. It also includes social
enterprise supports, includes informal and formal English as a second language
training and provide sponsorship coordination.
In
December, Mr. Speaker, we announced over $341,000 through the Newfoundland and
Labrador Settlement Integration Program for a variety of initiatives to expand
settlement and integration services and supports. Again, all of these making
sure that we're in line with implementing the two new categories that we're
getting.
Also, in
realizing that this may be an opportunity for us, in adding the two new
categories to our Provincial Nominee Program, we have worked with the
Association for New Canadians to open satellite offices in Labrador City, Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor so that when these
categories are added, Mr. Speaker, we will have a pan-provincial scope in
determining how these businesses will be set up.
Mr.
Speaker, also in addition to that we introduced the Atlantic Immigration Pilot
Program, which is the first of its kind in Canada, enabling employers to help up
to 442 newcomers annually settle in Newfoundland and Labrador, stay long term
and grow the local economy.
Our
government allocated funding to help internationally trained workers secure
employment in their fields through funding to enhance the provincial capacity to
recognize foreign qualifications. Through the Newfoundland and Labrador
Workforce Innovation Centre, we announced funding for Memorial University of
Newfoundland's Genesis Centre to increase entrepreneurship among women and
immigrants in the technology sector, and for the Association for New Canadians,
in partnership with Memorial University's Grenfell Campus, to connect former
refugees to the agricultural employment opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, we're introducing two new programs to provide international students
and graduates with the work placements to secure gainful employment and expand
their professional networks, encouraging them to remain in this province.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on ensuring Newfoundland and
Labrador becomes an even more attractive destination of choice for newcomers to
live, to work and to raise their families. Immigration supports efforts to
encourage private sector job creation and economic growth as identified in
The Way Forward, the
Cabinet Committee on Jobs and
The Way Forward on Immigration in
Newfoundland and Labrador. These new categories will make it easier for
international students, for international graduates and for entrepreneurs to
create businesses in our province and to make Newfoundland and Labrador their
home.
The
amendments provide a way for newcomers to establish their own businesses,
creating employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and supporting the
growth of our labour market. This creates opportunities for innovation and helps
grow our economy. These new categories reflect our government's commitment to
work with the federal government to address a concern that was identified by the
business community and strengthen our ability to attract and retain immigrants.
We will
be able to promote Newfoundland and Labrador as a destination of choice, a
destination of opportunity for potential entrepreneurs in the provincial nominee
program. Only participants in the provincial nominee program will be able to
take advantage of these two new categories.
This
pool of potential entrepreneurs has already demonstrated a commitment to
remaining in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of them have lived here for years
as international students, and as they seek the provincial government's support
to obtain permanent residency in Newfoundland and Labrador, all international
entrepreneurs and graduate entrepreneurs will have requested to have their
business plans and finances assessed by an independent third party and will
agree to having their operations monitored during and after nomination to ensure
active management of businesses and residency's in the province.
Participants and business operations in the program will be robustly monitored.
We want to ensure that these new categories are a way to attract individuals to
live, to work and create businesses and employment opportunities in this
province. The checks and balances in place, through the provincial nominee
program, are a proven way to ensure the entrepreneurs in these new categories
are based in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the changes to the
Corporations Act and I ask support
from my hon. colleagues.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
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 this morning and speak on Bill 18. First I'd
like to just talk about the purpose of this act. This is a simple act that we're
adding to make the opportunity for businesses to expand in our province and for
new business to start.
The
purpose of the Corporations Act and
what we're doing here this morning is to add a couple of definitions. One is the
immigration agreement, the other one is international entrepreneur and also
graduate entrepreneur. It also expands the definition of a resident Canadian.
That's important because – and I'll discuss that a little later. It's important
because what we're trying to do here today is to open Newfoundland and Labrador
up for business so that any business that can come forward and grow in our
province, which is a positive thing, will happen.
The
Corporations Act comes under Service
NL. The act covers a registry of companies and requires all limited liability
companies that operate in Newfoundland in Labrador are incorporated, registered
to do business in our province. That's important, because what this does,
liability companies are incorporated and this is to secure so that companies and
stakeholder companies cannot be held personally liable for debts or financial
losses. So it's important that we have corporations.
There
are some benefits also; there are benefits to being incorporated. The minister
already mentioned there are legal protections for liabilities and stuff like
that. It's easier, once you're incorporated, to raise money and to raise funds.
There's also, once you're incorporated, lots of tax advantages. Obviously, there
are some benefits also for government. It provides an opportunity that they can
pursue the assets of a corporation. Where a corporation fails or behaves badly,
then there are options for government to step in and be able to do something in
those cases.
Each
province in our country has different requirements when it comes to registry and
requirements basically for directors of corporations. Again, we're different in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister mentioned several other provinces, and
I'll mention them also, that have different requirements. You just can't
incorporate in every separate province. You have to do it in your own province.
Directors' responsibilities are for supervising activities of the corporation
and making decisions regarding those activities.
We
talked and the minister mentioned also; requirements under the
Corporations Act, in section 174(1), and it's simple what it says
here. It says: “At least 25% of the directors of a corporation shall be”
residents of Canada. That's what we're doing here this morning. We're expanding
the residency and opening it up so that this makes an opportunity for immigrants
who want to start a company in this country to be able to do so, without just
having to have this 25 per cent. Sometimes they find it very difficult. It's
difficult to be able to get people to be directors in your company. Like I said,
under that it required the residents in order for a company to become
incorporated in our province.
Under
the current Corporations Act, section
2(y), residents of Canada are generally defined as individuals who are Canadian
citizens, or (iii) “a permanent resident within the meaning of the
Immigration Act” who lives in Canada.
Twenty-five per cent residency requirement means that immigrants and
entrepreneurs have to find Canadian partners to be established. That's where
this is a problem, because if you're a new person coming in to the country,
sometimes it's a job to be able to get people to go along with your idea, go
along with how you want to start a company. It's the comfort that if want to be
a director or if you want to have people involved in your company, you got to
have assurances that you can count on that person. Sometimes it's difficult,
you're a new person; you're trying to start something. What we need in our
province and what we need in our country is for people to come in with new ideas
and new ventures to start something. So this is the problem that we find here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Service
NL officials stated the 25 per cent rule is considered – it's a problem for a
lot of people starting up these companies. It is important also when we look at
what the 25 per cent residency rule was put in there in the first place. It's
beneficial to companies also, because sometimes when you're coming to a new
culture, a new province in a new part of the world, it's nice to see the
perspective from the people, the culture that's here also. So it can be very
beneficial to a company that's starting off to come and understand the ways of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to understand our culture.
So it's
important that way for them to be able to familiarize themselves with what we
have and what Canadian businesses are set up for. That's the reason for it, but
we also have to recognize, though, that it's difficult for immigrants who want
to set up a corporation or business in our province to have the numbers of local
people to be able to do that. Sometimes this is a problem. What we're going here
today under this act, we're trying to make it easier for businesses to start in
our province.
There
are a number of provinces who've waived this – and the minister mentioned it –
the corporate directors having to be residents. They include BC, Quebec, Prince
Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As such, foreign individuals and
business wishing to register do not have to be appointed as a Canadian director
in these provinces.
While
recognizing that there are some barriers created by the residency rule, Service
NL acknowledged it would be practical to remove the 25 per cent requirement –
and we'll have some questions on that later on. Instead, government's
introducing amendments on the basis of this from Service NL working with the
Department of Advanced Education and Skills, and specifically, the Office of
Immigration and Multiculturalism within that department.
Officials in the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism responsibilities are
to administer the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Nominee Program. The
Nominee Program is currently a program that Canadian, Newfoundland and Labrador
– it's an agreement that we have with the Government of Canada. This was
introduced in 1999. It's a way for permanent residents who are skilled workers
and international graduates to attempt to work and live permanently in our
province.
In 2017,
the program was responsible for almost 50 per cent of the immigration to
Newfoundland and Labrador. So that program has been working well and it has
brought a lot of people to our province. Currently under the Newfoundland and
Labrador Provincial Nominee Program, there are three applicant categories.
International workers are seeking to be permanent residents here in Canada. It
has expressed entry into skilled workers and international graduates.
We have
to recognize in our province and in the country how important it is that we make
our province a place to come, how important it is for us to be able to open our
doors to international people that want to come here and work and start a
business. It's so important because what it does, it just broadens everything,
we get more people employed, it's great for our economy and it will attract new
people to come to our province. While we look at our province these days and
we're all about growth in population and ensuring that people stay here with
jobs and whatnot, this is really important that we recognize how important
immigration is to our province.
The
labour market itself, you look at some at some businesses and sometimes I'm
after hearing figures that when you start a business, the number of spinoffs
that come from that business is huge. Sometimes when you start a new business
it's not only that business, but it's the supplier, it's the people that work –
it could be delivery and it could be anything that generates from the business.
It's important that we make our doors open to the international community and to
immigrants that want to come here and start a business.
This is
important that we do this because we're in a competition. We're in a competition
with the rest of Canada, the rest of the world. When a person outside
Newfoundland and Labrador – one thing when they come and they look and they say
which country do I want to go to. They look at Canada and Canada is a very
positive country all over the world, and that's a place where they want to come.
Then,
within Canada, we're in competition with 10 other provinces and a territory. So
our province has to have the mechanisms in place to make sure that it's easy to
come here and set up a business. We have to ensure that people want to come here
and start a business.
I'm sure
that every province in Canada – I just mentioned a number of provinces that
don't even have the 25 per cent residency. In fact, I would say that's so they
can attract more immigrants to come and start a business in their province.
It's
very important. Like I said, what is happening here today, we're adding a couple
of categories: international entrepreneur and international graduate
entrepreneur, which will help establish – and this is going to be done through
the Provincial Nominee Program and the person coming to a country under these
categories – the change here this morning is before, like I said, what a
resident was, so they are going to be put in also as a resident of Canada.
Like I
said, the proposed change, basically Bill 18 is going to give us a definition of
the immigrant agreement, it's going to give us the definition of international
graduate entrepreneur and it's also going to expand the definition of a resident
of Canada to include both of those categories.
Mr.
Speaker, the amendment proposed, like I said addressed here today, officials of
the Office of Immigration states that the agreement in principle introduced in
these new categories will be updated by the Provincial Nominee Program and that
will be released later. For this reason, Service NL is not providing an exact
date of when those amendments will come into the
Corporations Act and when this will be put into force.
Just to
do a little overview of what we're talking about here today – and it's a
positive thing. It's important as a province that we do everything we can to
attract people to come to our province. We want our residents to stay in our
province. We want our population to grow. In order to grow, we have to have
businesses. In order to grow, we have to be attractive and make sure that we put
mechanisms that are in place so people want to start a business here, people
want to stay here, and that our population that's here now don't move away
because the opportunities are not here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So it's
very important that we have our
Corporations Act that are able to set up these businesses, that they have
the ability to do so. What we're doing here today is to make sure that
immigrants that come to this province have the opportunity to be able to start a
corporation. And if we don't do it here in this province, we don't make it
attractive in this province, what normally happens, it gets moved on to other
places.
So
again, just to say that the three new definitions is Immigration Agreement
refers to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration Agreement, and that
was done in July 7, 2016. Any amendments to this agreement is under section 2.1
of the agreement. An international entrepreneur describes an individual who is a
member of the international category established in accordance with the
Immigration Agreement. Again, that's under section 2, and it's (q.1). An
international graduate entrepreneur refers to an individual who is a member of
an international category established in accordance with the Immigration
Agreement, and again that's under section 2 also.
So the
other major part, like I said, is adding those definitions, and the three
definitions are important. What this does, the whole thing what we're trying to
do here today, is to expand what the Canadian resident is considered when it
comes to our act and what they need in order to get to 25 per cent in order to
start corporation of this company.
A
resident Canadian currently refers to an individual who has Canadian citizenship
or is a permanent resident within means of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
and that's with Canada. So what we're doing today is basically we're expanding
that to include international entrepreneur and international graduate
entrepreneur. The act will come into force in the future and it will be
proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
In a
nutshell, it's a good bill. Anything that we can do in this province to increase
business, any time we increase business we're increasing people coming to our
province, and hopefully the spinoffs from the business – and any time you get
some new ideas in any culture or any place at all, it's great to have it and
people all over the world can bring new ideas and expand what we have ongoing
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's a
good opportunity. There are some questions that I will be asking when we do get
into Committee, but overall it's a good move. Maybe there are some other things
we can do to make sure that our economy is growing.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 18, the bill dealing with an amendment
to the Corporations Act. The minister
and the Member for Cape St. Francis have done a great job in explaining what the
bill is about. I don't think I have to go through all of that again. Just to say
that it's extremely important what we are doing here today, important so that
people who are coming to our country and who want to remain in our country,
people who are coming here to our province and who want to remain here in our
province are given every assistance they can have to make sure that happens and
to make sure that they can make choices to remain here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I have a
particular interest in it because coming from an immigrant family I understand
the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the growth of our economy here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. When you go back to the early 20th century you had a
couple of key groups who immigrated to Newfoundland and Labrador, people from
China. There are many Chinese who came here. People from Lebanon, as my family
did, Lebanon, Syria and the area. We also had European-Jewish people who came
here as well.
For
anybody who is old enough to remember, the early 20th century, whether one lived
it or knows the history of it, the role of these immigrants, entrepreneurs and
business people was key. They had businesses all over the province, not just in
St. John's, but as new places grew up in the province they went there and set up
businesses, immigration entrepreneurs.
When
Corner Brook started getting off the ground in the 1920s, they went there. They
went to Badger, they went to Carbonear, they went to Botwood. They went all over
this province of ours, which was a country at that time prior to '49, setting up
their businesses. For the most part, that's what they did.
In the
Lebanese community that I grew up in, in St. John's, I don't think one of the
families did not have a business. I think they were all business people. So the
importance of immigrants to our province is historical, very, very historical.
What we're dealing with today is dealing with a current reality of immigration
in our province and trying to ensure that immigrants who are entrepreneurs and
want to have businesses in our province are encouraged in doing that.
Amending
our Corporations Act so that we
broaden the definition – I think that's the important thing to note, that we are
broadening the definition of what a resident Canadian means in the
Corporations Act because of the 25 per
cent rule that both the minister and the Member for Cape St. Francis have spoken
to that says the board of a corporation, under the
Corporations Act, must have at least 25 per cent resident Canadians
on the board.
The
broadening of the definition of resident Canadian is the most important piece of
this bill. So resident Canadian now does include the “Canadian citizen
ordinarily resident in Canada, (ii) a Canadian citizen not ordinarily resident
in Canada who is a member of a prescribed class of persons, (iii) a permanent
resident within the meaning of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada)
and ordinarily resident in Canada, except a permanent resident who has been
ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one year after the time at which he
or she first became eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship.”
Now,
very important, a resident Canadian also means “an international entrepreneur,
or an international graduate entrepreneur.”
The bill
has had to interpret as well what those two categories mean. An international
entrepreneur, the bill says: is a member of the international entrepreneur
category established in accordance with the immigration agreement. That's the
immigration agreement between Canada-Newfoundland and entering into the
agreement with the Government of Canada. The international entrepreneur is a
member of the international category established within that integration
agreement – the immigration agreement we have with Canada – and is ordinarily a
resident of Canada.
International graduate entrepreneur means an individual who is a member of the
international graduate entrepreneur category established in accordance with that
same agreement and who is ordinarily resident in Canada.
By
broadening the definition under the
Corporations Act of who a resident Canadian is, immigrants who are setting
up a corporate body – a business has to have been incorporated and had to have a
board of directors – will now have an easier time of finding people to be
members of their board with this broadening of the definition. Because a lot of
the people they have, a lot of their contacts are going to be people like
themselves, people who are international entrepreneurs or people who are
international graduate entrepreneurs. So it broadens the base for them and helps
them in forming corporations and forming businesses that are incorporated.
By doing
that, we are moving into an area which is extremely important because there are
going to be measures, checks and balances prescribed in policy to ensure
legitimacy. In some other jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada – for example, in PEI
and Nova Scotia – they have had problems with fraud and flight risks, and we do
know that happens. It happens outside of Atlantic Canada as well.
So it's
important to make sure that while on the one hand we are really trying to make
things easier for immigrants and entrepreneurs, immigrant entrepreneurs who want
to set up business here, that they are doing it, number one, because they really
are interested in the future of the province themselves, not just in their own
businesses but they want to help the economy; and, number two, that the business
they're setting up is a bona fide business and is going to be operating in the
way that we would expect a business to operate under our
Corporations Act.
Some of
the checks and balances are really important. Some will include having to own
the business for at least a year before it's incorporated, agreeing to an
independent third party screening of the candidate to ensure legitimacy, and
regular monitoring and reviews to ensure net assets are legitimate.
This is
not because we think people are deliberately going to be not legitimate or
they're going to become people who commit fraud, but the reality is that has
happened and that can happen. So ensuring who the persons are or who the person
is, ensuring that they are legitimately doing their business, ensuring that
what's going on is not as happened, for example, in PEI – an investor program
that eventually had to be investigated by the RCMP and the Canada Border
Services Agency because it really was something that was not there for the
economy of PEI, but was just there to help some people get money through
investments.
These
measures are very important. The agreement that the person applying under the
Corporations Act to form a corporation
has to agree to reside permanently in the province and they also have to be
day-to-day manager, so they're not saying I'm living somewhere else or the
manager is living somewhere else. No, the company has to be a real company in
our province with no absentee management going on. The proponent also has to
agree to ongoing monitoring of the business by outside agencies identified, of
course, under our legislation.
These
amendments and the policies that will accompany them mirror similar agreements
in other provinces. I think Nova Scotia, for example, has measures like this to
ensure that the program works well. It's possible that the minister talked about
when the policies and regulations will be in place – I'm not sure, but if he
didn't, I'm sure he'll tell us what the hope is about the timing of getting
these policies in place. I would imagine as soon as the bill is promulgated, as
soon as that happens, we would need the regulations. So I assume they have to be
finished, if they aren't already finished.
The
bill, as I've said, adds the definitions that are necessary and these amendments
will address the challenge of getting directors, as I pointed out, because this
has been the challenge for people who want to incorporate their businesses under
the old rule which was 25 per cent Canadian participation to be on the board.
Now, the 25 per cent remains but the definition of resident Canadian broadens.
That broadening is what brings in what is needed by the immigrant international
entrepreneurs as they set up businesses in our province.
I'm
happy to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. If I don't hear an answer from the
minister at this point, it will probably happen in Committee when I will have a
question about timing.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill. I won't take my full time,
but I just wanted to add a few words in support of this bill. One of the things
that I did before I entered politics was I taught at the university. I taught
some courses in the faculty of business and I taught some courses in
organizational theory, organizational behaviour, strategic planning and change
management in the MBA program.
What
really struck me there was, particularly in the change management course in the
MBA program that I taught, was that about half the students in my class were
international students from other countries, and what really struck me was that
the number of these students who were interested in starting their own
companies. They were very entrepreneurial, they wanted to get things going and
they were looking for opportunities in Newfoundland in terms of resources and
things that they could maybe sell to their home country or another country.
Another
thing that struck me was how international these students were. Like, you might
have a student from China who had finished part of his or her education in
China, moved to Europe, spent a couple of years in Europe, and then came here to
this province. So the world was really the place where – they talked very
globally about what they were doing and what types of businesses they wanted to
start. So that sort of presence here in our province, their presence here in
this province was an opportunity, I think, that we really have to look to for
development in the future.
So I
think it's very interesting that we're changing this bill to facilitate that
sort of participation further in our economy here, and it's something that I
really support.
Also,
recently the Association for New Canadians in this province – a place that I
taught for a while as a volunteer, taught English as a second language. They've
had a lot of success and really grown since I worked there as a volunteer years
ago.
They
recently opened an office out in Corner Brook. One of the things that they're
telling me is that a lot of the new arrivals to Canada want to go out, they want
to see businesses and economic opportunities that are available in the area, and
some people are looking at opportunities in agriculture and things like that.
They come to this country with skills in terms of cheese making and things like
that, that we maybe don't traditionally have here in Newfoundland. So it was
interesting to hear from the office out in Corner Brook that there were some
people who were interested in agriculture, interested in secondary processing
related to agriculture.
There's
a lot happening with people who come to this province. I think this piece of
legislation is very timely in that it sort of facilitates that involvement in
our economy. So I just wanted to say a few words in support of this motion.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank my colleagues from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Cape St. Francis, St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi and St. George's - Humber for contributing to this
debate this morning.
MR. LANE:
Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order, please, the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister
going to be closing debate?
MR. SPEAKER:
I didn't introduce her that
way, no.
MR. LANE:
You didn't? Okay, fine, I
thought she brought –
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
I didn't introduce you that
way.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Okay. Sorry. Go head.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
Okay,
let's recommence. You had wanted to speak.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, please proceed with your comments and
then we'll ask the minister to close debate.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister
of Service NL wants to speak to it as well, she can go ahead. My only concern
was I thought she was going to close debate and I wanted to speak. If the
Minister of AES is going to close debate and the Minister of Service NL still
wants to speak, then she can go ahead first. It doesn't matter to me.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
MR. LANE:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
apologize for the confusion. I'm not going to speak very long to this, but I did
want to have a couple of words on Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Corporations Act.
I think it's a good bill. I will be supporting the bill. I'm not going to get
into all the details of the bill. That's now been gone over numerous times by my
colleagues. I think they did a good job on diving down into all the details.
I would
just say, though, that one of the issues that we're facing here in Newfoundland
and Labrador is our population. We have an aging population. Generally, we've
had a shrinking population. We have just over half a million people. It would
certainly be, I think, a lot easier for us here in this province to be able to
have more sustainable government programs, to have more money for our existing
highways and roadways, our hospitals, schools if we had more people. Part of the
challenge we have is the size of our population. By growing the population we
create economies of scale, we make services a lot more affordable to deliver, we
have more people working and we have more people paying taxes.
We know
we're just simply not having enough children to keep up with people who are
passing away here in our province. That's a reality. There have been things
tried over the years. We know the former administration at one point introduced
this baby bonus – I don't know if it was called a baby bonus but I think it was
$1,000 to have a baby or whatever it was, former Premier Williams at the time.
Ultimately, we still have that challenge.
If we
want to grow our population, we have to look at other ways of doing it.
Obviously, immigration is a way we can do that, that we can expand our
population. If we want people to come here we have, I think, made some efforts
in bringing more people to the province which is a good thing. It's one thing to
bring them here and it's another thing to keep them here. That's a challenge.
What we've seen is a lot of people have come to this province and become a
Canadian citizen or whatnot, and after a couple of years then they all leave and
they go to Toronto or Montreal or one of the bigger centres, whatever. We see
that all the time.
We need
to encourage people when they come here to Newfoundland and Labrador to stay
here, to make it their home, to have children, for their children to have
children so that we can grow our population and we can grow our economy.
Ultimately, that's what we need to happen. Anything that we can do to foster
that type of growth and development, while at the same time diversifying our
culture, bringing new ideas and new opportunities, we need to do it.
This
bill is just one step in many steps which need to be taken to help make that a
reality. With that in mind, I will be supporting this bill. It's a good piece of
legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to rise and have a few comments related to this particular bill. The
amendments to the Corporations Act,
looking at the Corporations Act
and the means for investment coming into the
province and looking at the current incorporation rules related to the 25
per cent residency requirement. Having investment allowing to be attached to
someone here that has that residence requirement, and from a director's point of
view, have that connection to meet the requirements that currently exist.
From the
information on the bill, other jurisdictions were looked at the residency
requirement and the 25 per cent. Particularly, the residency requirement in some
jurisdictions do not have to appoint a resident Canadian director if they
incorporated in those provinces. Now my understanding from this bill, the
decision was not to go that route but to look at the current Newfoundland and
Labrador, the PNP, which is a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Immigration
Agreement, to look at that as a means to try to assist in adding additional
categories to allow this to happen.
Currently, the Provincial Nominee Program offers three categories, which were
mentioned: Express Entry Skilled Worker, Skilled Worker and International
Graduate. My understanding, this amendment will look at adding two new applicant
categories of International Entrepreneur and International Graduate
Entrepreneur. So it's two new applicant categories that would go through the
PNP.
It will
be interesting when we get into Committee to ask questions about is there
preference given to these two categories in regard to the other three that
currently exist, and what the amount of activity and time frame is for someone
to go through the PNP now. It seems this is the avenue that's being explored, in
allowing under the Corporations Act,
for external investment to meet the requirement of having a residency status of
a director would be adding these two categories.
Now you
have five categories. So the question becomes: How long does it take to get
through the PNP if someone wants to make that investment and be incorporated
under the Corporations Act here in the
province? Time frames? Is there preference given to these two categories, or are
they in with the other three and now become five categories, which you go under
the Newfoundland PNP? It will be interesting to see what the response is in that
residency requirement.
The
other issue is the information itself. My understanding is the bill is an
agreement in principle to introduce these categories to update the Provincial
Nominee Program. My understanding, as I said earlier, is that immigration is
obviously within the national jurisdiction and there are often, provincially,
agreements, which the PNP is. The requirements of any change here with the two
new categories would make sure they're in line with Immigration Canada,
immigration laws and are respected on a national basis and then flow to
provincial jurisdiction.
Interestingly enough, this actual amendment which is suggesting updates to the
categories under the Provincial Nominee Program – Service Newfoundland is not
providing an exact date to when these amendments to the
Corporations Act will come into
force. The question would be as we go through: Is that because the work to be
done with the PNP agreement, which is a joint agreement between Newfoundland and
Labrador and Canada under immigration – are there amendments that need to take
place with the agreement?
What exactly is the issue it can't move forward in
immigration or things not worked out with the federal government in regard to
changes to the PNP? Maybe it's in regard to the two categories or other issues.
It will be interesting in Committee to get information on that and why we're
going through the process here now, but there's no clear indication of an exact
date to when the amendments to the
Corporations Act will come into effect.
Those are the two that we look forward to having further
discussion on in regard to the two categories being added. How does that
expedite or deal with the issue of the residency requirement and that 25 per
cent, which now still stays, and making sure that's met in regard to investors
or a company that comes into this jurisdiction or wants to incorporate? How does
that facilitate it? What's the time frame for the PNP to go through that, these
two new categories? We have three already, so there are five in total.
Are there issues outstanding with Immigration Canada and
the federal component of this agreement that needs to be worked out, definitions
changed or issues resolved before – if we approve this amendment, whether it can
proceed forward? My understanding is there's no clear date given for the exact
date to have these amendments in the
Corporations Act moved and come into force.
Those are a couple of things I wanted to point out, Mr.
Speaker. I certainly look forward to having detailed discussions in Committee on
those particular and other items as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: If
the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now he
will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd
certainly like to thank all of my colleagues from Cape St. Francis, St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl - Southlands and Ferryland
for their contribution to the discussion on this amendment today.
Rather
than risk trying to capture some of the comments that were made by my
colleagues, rather than talk about them now, I'll leave it until the questions
come up in Committee because I may miss something. I'm sure that if I do,
they'll in fact bring that up. So I'm looking forward to answering those
questions.
Mr.
Speaker, it's certainly been a pleasure to discuss this matter in the House and
as Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour I am very excited that we
can see this new program come to fruition. I also want to make reference and say
a big thank you to the Minister of Service NL who has been very, very
supportive, and her staff, as we worked through this amendment to make sure that
we're capturing and providing all of the opportunities that we can, trying to
make things easier for entrepreneurs that are looking at investing and coming to
Newfoundland and Labrador to live, as well as our graduates.
As I
said before in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, we have a significant number of
graduates at our post-secondary institutions that have an interest in coming to
Newfoundland and Labrador. I might add that we have gotten the assurance from
the Minister of Service NL that she is taking her role in protecting the public
very seriously. We've had a significant amount of discussions around that and I
just want to say a big thank you to the minister and her department for working
with us to make sure these amendments are made.
The
act's director, resident Canadian requirement of at least 25 per cent adds an
important layer of regulatory oversite in the
Corporations Act. It promotes Canadian participation in corporate
decision making; it fosters compliance with an enforcement of legal obligations;
it promotes Canadian participation in the decision making of multinational
enterprises; and helps foreign firms to understand the economic, the political
and the social environment in Canada.
Residency requirements have been adopted in Canada in part to address concerns
about the amount of direct foreign investment in this country. In addition to
promoting Canadian interest and ensuring a local presence on corporate boards,
the director's residency requirements aim to ensure that there would be
directors who reside in Canada who would be accountable to the actions of the
corporation.
The
residency requirements help to promote compliance with the law, particularly
statutes that impose liability on directors for actions of the corporation.
Furthermore, if directors must be a resident in Canada, there is likely to be
local assets from which judgments can be satisfied.
Those
participating in this program will be active investors, living here and
contributing to the local economy. Therefore, changing the act to broadening who
can incorporate under the act is not a step that we take lightly. It is done
only after careful consideration and with the development of thorough and robust
monitoring and compliance mechanisms that will be in place within our
departments.
These
measures and these amendments will strike a proper balance between mitigating
the risk and giving the tools that participants in new business immigration
categories need to flourish in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, all of us have a role to play in increasing immigration to Newfoundland
and Labrador and, today, I am happy to be a part of supporting the program by
putting this bill before the House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations 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?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Noting
the time, I moved, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that we recess
until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House stand recessed until 2 p.m.
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.'
It being
Wednesday, in accordance with Standing Order 9(1)(b), this House is in recess
until 2 o'clock.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome everyone back after our recess.
We do
have some visitors today. I'd like to recognize, first of all, in the Speaker's
gallery, Ms. Mary Sexton. She will be the subject of a Member's statement this
afternoon, and she is accompanied by Sarah Sexton and Gary Sexton.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As we like to say in the
House of Assembly, we're very big on alumni. I'm very pleased to welcome back
our former Page, Fatimah Rathore, she's visiting us. It's great to have her
back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Having gone through a
filibuster or two, she's had her share of time in this room.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' Statements
today, I will be welcoming the Members for the Districts of Conception Bay
South, St. George's – Humber, Windsor Lake, Baie Verte - Green Bay and St.
John's Centre.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to information my hon. colleagues about an exceptional individual from my
district who was named Volunteer of the Year 2018 at the Sport Newfoundland and
Labrador's 11th annual Stars and Legends Gala.
Mr.
David Coates from Conception Bay South has been a long-time volunteer for
baseball in our community. As an administrator of CBS Minor Baseball, David was
responsible for the supervision of summer staff, administering the summer
program, and serving as a liaison between the local association and town
officials on facility upgrades, improvements and issues.
As a
coach, David served a number of teams, including the CBS Storm in the St. John's
Amateur Baseball Association, the CBS Raiders in the Junior A provincials, and
the Baseball NL 15U team that competed at the 15U National Championships.
David
was also the host committee chair for Baseball NL in the 13U AA Championships
that were by hosted by the province in CBS. David and his host committee put off
a very successful event that players, coaches and parents were complimentary of
his hard work, passion and dedication to ensuring a successful event for
everyone involved.
I
congratulate David for his commitment and achievements, and ask all hon. Members
to join with me in recognizing his contribution to our community and the
province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to let everyone know that the 2018 Codroy Valley Folk Festival will happen
July 27, 28 and 29 of this year.
The
Codroy Valley Folk Festival takes place in Upper Ferry (that's Route 406 off the
Trans-Canada Highway) at the recreation centre behind Belanger High School. The
festival was first introduced in 1982, and will celebrate its 36th year in July.
Throughout its history, the festival has played host to the best local talent
the Codroy Valley has to offer, and provides a venue each year for both
residents and tourists to come together and celebrate the unique culture and
heritage of the area.
The
Codroy Valley is one of the few areas of the province with a prominent Scottish
heritage. The music of the festival includes a distinct Scottish flavour with
bagpipes, Scottish dancing and fiddle playing, as well as other traditional and
contemporary music. The festival will be going ahead rain or shine under a big
tent.
I
encourage everyone to come this year and enjoy what the festival has to offer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Mr. Thaddeus Dreher, a resident of the
District of Windsor Lake.
An
advocate for diversity and multiculturalism, Mr. Dreher led the Provincial
Multiculturalism Association for more than 25 years. He is a decorated Polish
war veteran who fought Nazis in the Second World War and was recently awarded
the Polish Pro Patria medal for his service and volunteer efforts. A loving
husband and father, Mr. Dreher has lived a life of service to his countries and
his community.
As his
birthplace, Poland, celebrates 100 years of regaining independence, Thaddeus
Dreher also celebrates his 100th birthday in August of this year.
Mr.
Dreher is quoted as saying: “World War 2 was a warning to everybody that we have
to change, that we have to be different. Multiculturalism is more important than
ever.”
This
veteran and proud Newfoundland and Labrador citizen has personally been the
catalyst for what the world aspires to be – democratic, inclusive and
compassionate.
May the
leadership and legacy of Mr. Dreher be reflected in the actions we take to live
up to his expectations of a diverse world where we have learned from our past.
Please
join me in wishing Mr. Thaddeus Dreher a very happy 100th birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate Constable Paula Strowbridge, who was recently honoured as
Newfoundland and Labrador's 2018 RCMP Police Officer of the Year.
Paula
was born and raised in Springdale, the same community that she finds herself
patrolling today; a model student, a fantastic athlete, an accomplished musician
and daughter of very proud parents. After completing her music degree at
Memorial, it was off to the RCMP Training Depot in 2004.
After
graduation, Paula spent three-and-a-half years in Nanaimo, BC before
transferring back to Newfoundland and Labrador. After stints in both Placentia
and Whitbourne, she decided to take leave from the force to raise her family. In
2016, she returned to active duty in her hometown and we are very fortunate, Mr.
Speaker, to have her.
Today,
Paula is a devoted member of her church, teaches piano lessons and is involved
in the community recreation programs with her daughters. Any opportunity to
volunteer, Paula will be the first in line. Driven by a sincere motivation to
help others, she takes great pride in protecting those who cannot protect
themselves.
I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating
Constable Paula Strowbridge, VOCM Crime Stoppers, RCMP Police Officer of the
Year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Twelve years ago, film producer Mary Sexton began her
odyssey to bring Maudie to the big
screen – and she did it. Not only did she get the story of artist Maude Lewis on
screens around the world, Maudie won
20 international awards. Among them: Best Motion Picture at the Canadian Screen
Awards, and three awards at the Irish Film & Television Academy awards.
The role of a producer is to have a vision, gather the best
team possible to realize that vision and make sure that everyone has what they
need to do their best to bring the story to life. The producer takes the risk
and is the guiding force and the glue that holds everything and everyone
together. It takes determination, skill, passion and, above all, courage – and
what an incredible film Mary and her team created.
Mary Sexton is proof that despite all obstacles, beautiful,
powerful films can be made.
Thank you, Mary, for the incredible gift of
Maudie to the world. Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In March, students from this province competed in the
Enactus Canada Regional Exhibition that was held in Halifax. Among them were
students from the College of the North Atlantic's Grand Falls-Windsor campus.
The Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor team included many
first-year students who had never competed in an exhibition before and they did
exceptionally well. The team won the Scotiabank EcoLiving Green Challenge. They
placed second behind Memorial University in the TD Entrepreneurship Challenge,
and also took second in the Capital One Financial Education Challenge.
Winning the Scotiabank EcoLiving Green Challenge also
qualified this outstanding group of students to compete in the Enactus National
Exhibition held in Toronto May 14-16, where they received the Spirit Award in
their respective league
competition.
I am
very proud to say that the President of Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor was also
named HSBC Woman Leader of Tomorrow. Crystal Ford is a second-year business
management student at the College of the North Atlantic, and this honour
provides significant rewards for her and the team. For the next 12 months,
Crystal will be paired with a woman leader to help develop her leadership
skills. She has earned a prize of $1,000 for herself and $2,500 for Enactus
Grand Falls-Windsor.
As I
know many of my hon. colleagues would agree, celebrating the accomplishments and
exciting potential of our province's students is one of the great rewards of our
work. Education is the passport to a brighter future for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
During
May and June, graduation ceremonies will be held at the College of the North
Atlantic campuses throughout the province. These graduates are well educated,
highly skilled and prepared to capitalize on the numerous opportunities that
exist in our province today and in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the students
and graduates of College of the North Atlantic.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Each time we, as Members of
this House, have the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of students in the
province, it is indeed a great experience. We would like to acknowledge the
Enactus teams from all across this province that have taken part in these
important competitions and salute the winners. We offer our best to Ms. Crystal
Ford on being named the HSBC Woman Leader of Tomorrow.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, we would like to formally congratulate all
graduates of the College of the North Atlantic and commend them for a job well
done. We wish them all the very best in the years to come.
Thank
you very much.
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, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to
this year's graduates of the College of the North Atlantic and congratulations
also to the Enactus Grand Falls-Windsor team and their outstanding performance
in regional and national Enactus exhibitions, and as well to Crystal Ford on her
recognition.
I point
out to the minister, though, that while he claims to celebrate our students, who
deserve acclaim, his government also made a net $1.5 million budget cut to the
college this year. This before the college's review and modernization plan is
finished and before the post-secondary review has even started.
Not a
good strategy for investing in our youth, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to acknowledge the recent success of two important events, one here in
Newfoundland and Labrador and the other in the nation's capital, both
commemorating National Seal Products Day on May 22.
National
Seal Products Day acknowledges the cultural significance of the sealing industry
and its ties to the economic well-being of sealers and seal product producers.
The Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador have worked tirelessly to plan
these events, which highlighted seal product displays and, in Ottawa, a feast
was prepared by well-known chefs from this province, Todd Perrin of Mallard
Cottage and Lori McCarthy of Cod Sounds.
Mr.
Speaker, our sealing industry is active and growing. In 2017, landings increased
by 22 per cent to approximately 81,000 with a value of approximately $2 million
and employment of over 50 processing jobs alone.
Our
government supports the seal product market development through a variety of
funding and grant programs. Since 2007, Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador have invested $630,000 in various projects aimed at
improving the sustainability of the seal industry. We were a major sponsor of
National Seal Products Day this year.
Mr.
Speaker, the people of our province have a strong regard for our sealing
industry, and National Seal Products Day is our country's chance to proudly
share that regard with the entire world. I congratulate everyone involved in
making National Seal Products Day a resounding success, and look forward to
keeping that momentum going with our continued support for this proud and vital
industry.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I was pleased to
attend the event held in the lobby at Confederation Building last Thursday. I
was happy to see that it was so well attended and the display by the craft
producers was very impressive.
Mr.
Speaker, sealing has strived in Newfoundland and Labrador for hundreds of years
and is of deep historic significance to our province. Seal harvests continues to
have an economic importance to our province, particularly in rural and coastal
communities. The industry continues to produce high-quality products that are in
high demand.
Throughout our term, our government promoted and invested in the seal industry
to help ensure income for sealers and processing workers, and also support the
long-term viability of our fish stocks. I would encourage the provincial
government to do so today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the copy of his statement. I congratulate everyone involved in
the recent success of National Seal Products Day, both here and in Ottawa. The
industry has grown in the past few years and this is really good to see,
especially for somebody who likes seal flippers.
It is
one of the oldest industries in this province and has had its share of troubles,
but has been resilient. Government has had a role to play in the industry
upswing. We encourage government to do even more to improve the industry, expand
the markets and promote the benefits of seal products worldwide.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through
an access to information request, we uncovered some troubling information
related to a matter in Central Health.
I ask
the Minister of Health: Did you – and I quote – willingly and purposely change
the composition of the board of trustees in order to change the outcome of an
appeal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
The short answer, Mr.
Speaker, would be no.
If you
need any further context, the facts of the case are that the board members in
Central were all-time expired. A request went into the Independent Appointments
Commission, probably, if not the end of 2016 then early 2017, and their
appointments went through that process. Their appointments were ratified and
they took their place sometime before the Central Health review was announced,
Mr. Speaker, but, again, the short answer was no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
appeal in question concerning the suspension of a health professional was before
the board for a decision, but two days before the appeal hearing, the minister
appointed a new board chair. An action that was clearly seen by many in Central
Health as blatant interference by the minister in order to achieve the decision
he wanted.
Can the
minister confirm?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Again, the short answer would
be no, Mr. Speaker.
This is
purely a coincidence. The board trustees and the chair were appointed through
the IAC process and that request was initiated months before that occasion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Then the
days before the board was changed, a staff meeting at Central Health was
cancelled because – as suggested by the document – the minister fired the board.
Why did
the minister turf the board? Was that the only way you could control the
decision-making process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
gentleman opposite seems to conflate facts. The facts of the case are the old
board served until the new board was appointed. The appointment of the new board
automatically terminates the old board of trustees, Mr. Speaker.
This
process had been initiated months before and the gentleman is trying to join
dots which do not exist.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
quoting from the document that we had received through the access to
information. I can share that with the House if the minister would like.
According to Recommendation 3.3 in the recently released external review by
Central Health it states: “The responsibility for Credentialing and Privileging
of physicians should be a Board responsibility based on the recommendations of
the RHA Credentials Committee.”
Your
alleged interference is a stark contradiction to this recommendation.
Does the
minister plan to abide by these recommendations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again,
the gentleman conflates to unrelated incidents. The recommendation to which the
Member refers is an entirely useful and appropriate one. I have no issues with
it at all. It will, however, take a bylaws change to do that. Again, he's
joining dots that do not exist.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's not the appearance by
the documentation that we received.
When can
the Autism Society and individuals with autism, along with their families,
expect to see the elimination of the IQ70 criterion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We are
working with our colleagues in other branches of government to develop a
disabilities approach to home and support care. This will effectively remove the
diagnosis from the issue. What we're looking at is what people need as
individuals, what levels of support they need regardless of any particular
issue.
Our aim
is to have a system that is individually focused and focused on the needs of the
individual, Mr. Speaker. That is nearly there and it will be completed by the
fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
This threshold results in
some people with autism not availing of recreational supports, special child
welfare allowances and respite care; all this despite there being zero
relationship between autism and intelligence.
How can
the minister justify using such an assessment tool when he knows fully well it's
unfairly disadvantaged to so many?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I would agree with the
principle, Mr. Speaker, that the Member opposite espouses. We are moving away
from that.
I would
point out, the gentleman opposite had 12 years to change it; we will have it
done by the end of the year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
It's good they're sticking to
the blame game, I like when they do that. It works well for them.
What is
the status of the implementation of the provincial autism action plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
For clarity, Mr. Speaker, I
believe I may have mentioned the fall twice in previous answers. It will be the
fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
No doubt this side of the
House, and a number of people, are looking forward to making sure that time
frame is met. Almost three years into your term and no movement on the key
campaign promise.
I ask
the Premier: Why would you promise something to the people of the province when
you apparently have no real intention of honouring those promises? Will you
commit today to introduce these important changes to the autism community in the
upcoming fall sitting?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of
clarity, we have been working on this plan – which they had 12 years to address,
not just us. We have been working on this to produce a person-centred
individualized care plan for any person with a disability regardless of their
diagnosis. That is not done overnight. I want it done properly and it will be,
and it will be the fall, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety
has noted in the past that the legalization of marijuana will be the single
largest policy shift this province and this country has seen in many years; yet,
here we are just mere weeks from the legalization with what appears to be very
little planning or preparation done.
I ask the minister to update the people of the province
and explain what the province and the government has done to be ready for July
1.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I would suggest to the Member opposite is just
wait until the Notices of Motion section today when we go through the Order
Paper.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So here we are with such a significant policy shift,
widespread implications, including what the minister has said is multiple
government departments and agencies that will be involved.
Minister, I ask you: Why are you waiting until the last
minute to introduce this legislation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the Member opposite would prefer we do it the
other way, which is rush into it and have a piece of legislation that is not
suitable to, obviously, what is a big policy change.
Again, if we put it in too fast they're going to
complain. If we put it in now they're going to complain. What I would say is
that we are right on track to be ready with the federal government's
implementation of cannabis legalization.
There's been a tremendous amount of work that's gone
into this, a tremendous amount of consultation. There are multiple departments
across this government that have been meeting amongst ourselves and with our
colleagues across the country. What I will say is today we will be bringing
forward Notices of Motion on a number of pieces of legislation as it relates to
the legalization of cannabis. We, as a province and a government, will be ready.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are only four regular sitting days, other than
the PMR day for next week, only four days left in the parliamentary calendar for
this session.
I ask the minister again: Why are you waiting until the
last minute to bring this forward?
There are several pieces of legislation coming to the
House, very important, most significant policy shift and change that the
province and country has seen, according to the minister's own words. So why are
they waiting for the last minute to bring this forward? Is it because you
haven't been ready until this point in time, or are you intentionally leaving it
until the last minute?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is as a government we are going to take our
time to be ready and have the best pieces of legislation possible put forward in
this House. I could go back and remind the Members opposite of legislation that
they rushed here, but
the people of the public know where we got with it. What was that bill again?
Oh, Bill 29 – Bill 29.
What I
would suggest is that we have plenty of time. If the Members opposite require
more time in this House to debate it, we will take as much time as we need to
debate this piece of legislation, the multiple pieces. We have all the time in
the world to get this done and to do it right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
can assure the minister he's correct. We'll take all the time we need to review
and to debate all the legislation they have signalled they're going to be
bringing forward in the last few sitting days of this session.
Mr.
Speaker, residents of Freshwater in Conception Bay in the District of Carbonear
- Trinity - Bay de Verde are concerned about the possibility of a new
marijuana-related facility or production site being established near the
community. We're receiving calls on it regularly.
Can the
minister confirm for this House that what the local residents are fearing, that
this will become a new production facility or operation related to the
legalization of marijuana?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
would say to the Member opposite is if any community or citizen in this province
has a concern, they can certainly bring it to our attention. I have not received
any correspondence, notification or any information that would indicate that
there is an issue of this nature.
I look
forward to hearing about it. Again, we've been working with municipalities,
we've been working with citizens, we've been working with the business community
to make sure that we bring this out. So I'd love to hear from anybody on this.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the
Minister of Justice or the Minister of TCII confirming for this House here today
that the changes in development that's happening in this site in Freshwater, in
the District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, is not related to the
legalization of marijuana?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
anybody who wants to get into producing cannabis from a production point of view
they would have to go through Health Canada and be appropriately licensed. There
are multiple stages and steps that are required. We did not have any licensed
producers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have to go through that
process. They also have to go through municipal permitting processes.
We will
engage with anybody who's looking at setting up a production facility in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We've had discussion with multiple companies
throughout the province, but they have to meet the criteria with all
stakeholders, whether it's the municipality that would be dealing with
permitting or Health Canada, to achieve their licensing.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the answer from the minister, but we've heard that in the House here
several times. My question was specific about a location in Freshwater in
Carbonear.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of TCII once again: Can he confirm or deny or tell
this House, is that facility undergoing an application process; is he aware of
an interest to establish an operation related to legalization of marijuana at
that site?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister just outlined,
there's a process in place, I think it's Health Canada, then you would have to
do an environmental assessment.
But let
me tell the Members opposite: Any time there's a chance for economic development
in my district, in this province, I'm going to support it. If it meets the
criteria – Health Canada, environmental assessment, any other regulations that
would be in place – they will go through the process, but I'm happy to have
economic development in my district.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
question is very simple, and we all support economic development. The question
was: Is this site associated with a business that's going through a process to
engage in the marijuana or cannabis business? And we have three ministers now
who are refusing to answer the question; even the MHA for the district will not
answer the question for his constituents who are calling us.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of TCII is on the record as saying that Newfoundland and
Labrador companies can access the same benefits as were given to their
hand-picked choice, Canopy Growth. Now, what other Newfoundland and Labrador
companies, I ask the minister, have been offered the same $40 million deal to
set up a production operation in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the question; because if Newfoundland and Labrador being
the only province without a licensed producer of cannabis, once the federal
government makes cannabis legal, then we would have to import all of our product
and import all of that without having any production or any jobs, but have all
the associated costs with cannabis in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
By being
able to be open for business and have a company like Canopy come to Newfoundland
and Labrador, create 145 jobs over 20 years, that's very positive. There are a
number of other companies that are looking at setting up business in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They have to meet the criteria, and they have to go
through that particular process. I can't explain it any further than that but if
the Member opposite needs a briefing I'm more than happy to provide.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And here
we are, a few days away, we've got legislation coming in and again the minister
won't answer, or doesn't know the answer to the question. It was very simple:
What other business has been provided the $40 million deal similar to Canopy
Growth? And the minister won't answer it.
So I'll
try this one with him. I'll ask the minister: Why did he approve a marijuana
storefront operation being located 600 metres from an elementary school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to go back and actually point out that when the Member opposite is talking about
a $40 million deal, there is no cash that is changing hands here. There is no
cheque that is being cut by the provincial government.
What is
happening, when we're looking at production here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
when we look at business attraction and growth for companies, we look at a mix
of opportunities. One of the things that we've done here in the province is
looking at a mix of retail and looking at incentives through reduced sales
rebate.
If the
company does not sell any product here in Newfoundland and Labrador, then they
do not recoup their cost. They're going to make the investment. The risk is on
the business owner itself. When it comes to retail production, that is something
that was provided by the NLC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The $40
million deal is $40 million in tax collections they won't have to remit to the
province. That's $40 million. My question was: What other companies are being
offered the same deal? And he still won't answer it.
So let's
go back to the question again: Minister, are you okay with a marijuana
storefront operation being 600 metres from an elementary school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When it
comes to any type of deal that we would do here in the province, we said we are
open business when it comes to production. We want to develop an industry here
that includes research and development, that also includes a number of other
associated jobs, supply chain, export opportunities.
We have
a number of other companies that we are in negotiation with and in discussion,
but they have to get through licensing with Health Canada. They have to meet the
criteria. There's environmental assessment. There is all of that that must be
done.
We will
look at the deal that was put forward with Canopy as a template, but we have to
look at eligible costs and do our due diligence when it comes to any particular
deal. We've had great discussions with other companies and we have not had
complaints from producers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
the minister doesn't want to talk about an operation being established in
Conception Bay South 600 metres from an elementary school.
Minister, let me ask you this: Are you okay with a storefront operation being
sent up a 450-metre walk from a junior high school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, when we put
forward the legislation when it came to production facilities in Newfoundland
and Labrador, we put clear criteria in place for parameters of where of these
production facilities could be put in place for zoning. That is something that
will be up to the municipality to approve permitting when it comes to making
sure that they're in compliance with the legislation.
What the
Member opposite is talking about is not production facilities. He's talking
about retail product. Some of that retail product, whether it's a tier one or
tier two, tier three or tier four store with the NLC – if it's tier one or tier
two, they would not have an opportunity for anybody under the age of 19 to enter
the store; tier three or tier four, no product is available for viewing.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question was is the minister okay with it, but he didn't want to answer that
question either; that seems to be a trend here today.
Minister, how about this; there are three licenced or approved – I should say
approved – storefront retail outlets that have been approved for Conception Bay
South, a distance of just over two kilometres, three licences issued. Are you
okay with that as well?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
ask the Member opposite, who represents the community of Conception Bay South –
which is the second largest municipality outside of the City of St. John's –
which is having three retail outlets in its community that is going to be
employing people and they're going to be selling and servicing a product.
These
business owners put forward applications; they obviously see a business case
there and an assessment was done independently through the NLC to determine that
these amounts of locations make sense for a community the size of CBS.
I ask
the Member opposite: Does he not support having businesses operating in his
community that he represents?
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.
The
Eastern Newfoundland Regional Appeal Board has not reported a decision since
December 2017; that's over five months.
Can the
minister confirm that there is a backlog of appeals?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I have no problem looking into this issue if people are waiting some
time for appeals; I wouldn't have those statistics here in front of me. It's not
an issue that's come to my attention either. So what I would suggest is that if
the Member is aware of any, I certainly be happy to look into this.
What I
would point out is that these boards are independent entities of government.
They are not government operated. They are appointed under legislation that was
put into this House during the previous administration.
But
again, happy to look into it – not a problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, I would like to remind you that these appeal boards are appointed by
government and the eastern appeal board, as far as I understand, they only have
two members; they're waiting for government to appoint three more.
Minister, a municipality in my district has been told that they would be unable
to hear an appeal for up to 12 months. Can you confirm that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, Mr. Speaker, I can't
confirm that because I don't operate – these are independent entities and I
haven't been contacted by the municipality.
What I
would suggest is again – when it comes to any appointment under any department,
we'll work our way through. Contrary to the other side, we do have an
Independent Appointments Commission. So it has taken some time to ensure that we
have people go through this independent process to ensure they're put in these
places.
What I
would suggest is that if any municipality has any issue of this nature and feels
that they're waiting too long, I'm happy to look into it, but I cannot do so
unless it comes to me. That being said, these are independent boards.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm going to remind the
minister again that they're not really independent. The department has people on
those boards that work with the people to do the appeals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Cabinet does the
appointments.
This is
unacceptable. What are you doing for municipalities? Can you address their
needs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
what the Member opposite is saying is that for the 12 years they were there they
directed the operations of these Regional Service Boards. What I can suggest is
that it's not what we do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would point out to the
other side, we don't say anything when they're asking the questions; I'd
appreciate the same courtesy.
What I
would suggest, these are –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it's
amazing.
What I
would suggest is that we would love to make sure that we have people in these
positions. From what I gather, the board is still moving independently; is still
handling matters. I have had no community come to me with a matter of this
nature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I remind the minister that
this is an appeal board that I, as a former mayor, had many opportunities to go
and present at this appeal board.
It's
very important to municipalities in this province and to residents in this
province that they have a place to go to be able to get the jurisdictions done
when there are disputes in communities.
The
Regional Appeal Board for Central has not been posting decisions since March
2017. The boards from Western and Labrador have not made a decision since the
fall of 2016, that's over a year and a half.
Can the
minister confirm that there's a backlog of appeals in those areas also?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I
cannot confirm any statistics at this point. It's not an issue that's been
brought to my attention. What I can say is that when it comes to boards out
there, we are in the process of making appointments if it is board related.
What I
would suggest to the Member opposite, as a former mayor he would realize that
it's always important to let the department know if you are having issues. I was
recently at Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador in Gander; spoke with a
number of communities. I'm always willing to hear issues that they have to put
forward.
If
communities have issues, I'm willing to hear it and willing to sit down and have
a chat with them about it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, I understand you
were out and talked to municipalities, but my understanding is that right now
there are approximately 36 appeals waiting to happen in the Eastern board.
When can
we expect appointments to be made on these boards in those areas?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Again,
as I pointed out earlier, and contrary to what the previous administration did,
many of these boards have to go through an Independent Appointments Commission.
We can't take our party campaign organizers and stick them in these plum
positions. We have to go through a process where we have an independent
commission that will look through it.
We're
working diligently to make that happen, to ensure that these independent boards
stay independent and have good, qualified people doing the work for the people
of the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'd like to remind the
minister that there's a former Liberal candidate on one of those boards.
AN HON. MEMBER:
MHA.
MR. K. PARSONS:
MHA, former MHA.
Minister, can you confirm that the new boards for appeals will begin hearing
soon? It's very important to municipalities in this province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, is that anybody on these boards – now that we've appointed – has gone
through an independent process. We didn't take our party leaders and let them
run off on vacations and then put them back into independent positions. That's
not going to happen on our watch.
What I
would suggest is that when it comes to any of these boards under Municipal
Affairs, we'll certainly work to ensure that the work is getting done. I have
not had this issue brought to my attention.
Right
now, I know there are positions being filled on these various boards, and we
look forward to them continuing their work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday, this house debated Bill 10, which will give the school districts the
right to refuse to admit to schools students whose presence is deemed to be
detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of students or staff. Such
powers in some other jurisdictions with similar legislation have led to children
with disabilities being kept out of schools.
I ask
the minister: What plan does he have to ensure that such situations do not
increase in our schools because of this amendment to the Schools Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, it's my pleasure to speak to that question today. I think the answer
I have today is really no different or not much different than it was yesterday.
I think
we were very clear in the questions that were provided to me or asked during the
Committee, I tried to be very, very clear that these are circumstances – people
with exceptionalities are not included in that, Mr. Speaker.
The
intent of the change is the amendment was put in place to ensure that if an
event happened outside of the physical school and the surrounding school
property that will be dealt with by, now, the CEO of the school districts.
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.
Again,
the minister is referring to something in a bill that doesn't exist.
The
inclusion policies for our educational system are supposed to ensure that all
children can be accommodated in our schools. Some children have disabilities
that may cause behavioural problems over which they have little or no control
and which require extra human resources in schools for their own safety and the
safety of other students and staff.
I ask
the minister: What is his plan for increasing resources in our educational
system to meet the challenges of maintaining inclusion for children with
disabilities in school facilities and activities as defined by the Premier's
task force on education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the question. Again, I think I made mention yesterday, as a former
teacher myself, after spending 14 years in administration, 16 years in the
classroom, I know what inclusive education is all about. I know what challenges,
as I mentioned yesterday, that exceptionalities within students have to face.
Mr.
Speaker, we work within the school to ensure that we have inclusive education.
The Premier's task force, if the Member took some time to look at the 82
recommendations that are there, will know that we are implementing them, we're
working on them. We are providing special teachers that will be put in place to
address (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
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.
We've
been told that the actual policies on refusing admission will be put in place by
the two school boards based on guidelines provided by the department.
I ask
the minister: Will these policies include a clear statement that legislation on
policies will not be used to deny admission to children with disabilities
because human resources are not available for them in the school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I tried yesterday, to the best of my ability, to answer the questions
when some of these were brought up and I'm repeating myself today, Mr. Speaker –
if the Member opposite will give me an opportunity – as I did yesterday.
If she
had taken the time to read the 82 recommendations in the Premier's task force,
we are putting measures in place for more support. We are not looking at
opportunities to exclude exceptionalities within our schools. We're looking at
inclusive schools. We're looking at providing safe and caring schools so that
students and teachers have a safe working environment, and an environment where
we have programs that are provided for all students, Mr. Speaker, and we'll
continue to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister: What will prevent this amendment, Bill 10, from being used to
force children with disabilities out of school when services are not available
for them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, sometimes it
gets very difficult when you get down to the weeds in some of these situations
and make it what it's not.
The
intent of the amendment that was put in place yesterday is to provide safety
within our schools. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with addressing issues
with exceptionalities. We have policies in place that provide services to
students who have exceptionalities. We have made a commitment that we will
continue to provide services. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, more support.
We're not putting barriers up; we are removing barriers and we will continue to
do that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling
two Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal years
2019-20 and 2020-21.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Smoke-Free Environment Act, Bill 22.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, Bill 25.
I
further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis, Bill 20.
I
further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, an act
to amend the liquor control act, Bill 21.
I
further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For
Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province,
Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
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 Highway
Traffic Act, Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
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
Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception Bay South
and is a vital artery to the provincial road network; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled roads in the province; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I
presented this petition yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and as a promise to the
residents I represent in the District of CBS who – as I said yesterday, and I
will say every time I present this petition, it's one of the most important
issues to them because the road is in need of major upgrades and it's the fifth
busiest road in the province.
After
presenting that petition yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and Works
stood to his feet and responded. People in my district would love to hear a
response. They like to hear the minister's response and answer the questions,
but what we heard yesterday was nothing short of gibberish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It is what it is, Mr. Speaker. That's what I can only determine. I listened to
it the second time. I realize the people in my district were not too impressed,
and I'm sure people in this province are probably not impressed with some of the
responses you get from the minister on stuff like that.
It's a
serious issue. You bring it to the House. It's filed up on a petition; it's
signed by people. This is a very important part to a lot of people in your
communities we represent, to bring these petitions to the House, to have them
addressed, to bring them to the floor of the House of Assembly because this is
the people's House. They have questions they want to ask. We as MHAs ask the
questions.
As I
said before, we ask questions, they're supposed to provide answers. I asked
questions about the road. People want this road upgraded. It's very important to
them. What we got back in the other answer wasn't an answer, Mr. Speaker. It was
nothing short of gibberish.
Thank
you very much.
Maybe
the minister might want to get up today and give us better answers. He's right
excited, he's stood to his feet but I'm not sat down yet. So maybe he'll wait
until I finishes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Maybe he'll get up today and tell the people of my District of Conception Bay
South what he's planning on doing for Route 60. People don't want to hear this
rhetoric. They want to get answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Remember, Mr. Speaker, like I said, we ask questions, they're supposed to
provide answers. So I'll sit in my place and I'll expect, as the residents of my
district expect to get answers from the minister.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate the same respect from that side as we just showed for the previous
speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is what I gave out yesterday was not gibberish, it was
numbers. It was facts. Now I realize the Members opposite consider numbers to be
gibberish. They were the ones with the Finance Minister that couldn't add.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, the reality here is we understand the value of roads. We've
actually met on two occasions in the last six to eight weeks with the Town of
CBS. The reality is we want to work with the Town of CBS. We built a bypass
road. The province built a bypass road back – I think it opened in 2013-2014.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we would expect the Town of CBS to work with us for transferring Route
60 to the town, like has happened in many communities. In my district, in
Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, when the Carbonear bypass road was built,
Water Street, which was the main street through Carbonear, reverted to the Town
of Carbonear. That's been the practice.
Route 60
through Paradise was reverted to the Town of Paradise after Peacekeepers Way was
built. Portions of Topsail Road have reverted to the City of Mount Pearl over
time, Mr. Speaker. That's the natural path of roads in this province.
Our
primary concern is Peacekeepers Way. It's also a concern with Route 60, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member and I had many conversations about Route 60 and we'll continue to have
them, but for him to say the numbers are gibberish – I'm just going to remind
him quickly of the numbers. In our two years in government we have invested
seven times more in Route 60 than they did in their last three years in office.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
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 of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
class sizes, adequate school space and healthy socialization is essential to our
students receiving the best quality education; and
WHEREAS
schools such as St. Francis of Assisi are without cafeteria space and students
do not have the opportunity to move about during the day; and
WHEREAS
schools in Newfoundland and Labrador have some of the largest cap sizes and some
of the lowest rates of literacy; and
WHEREAS
the education system in our province must be designed to ensure that each child
has the best opportunity to fulfill his best potential;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government, and call on government to take action in our
educational system and ensure smaller class sizes and provide significant space
for children to allow for a higher quality of education. Take action to address
issues in schools such as St. Francis of Assisi where they are without adequate
space and using combined classes, and ensure students have a high quality
standard of education in a quality learning environment.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners humbly pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I presented this petition last week on behalf of parents of St. Francis
of Assisi in my district. I want to say today that people in that community are
very proud of their school. It's a great school. The teachers are fantastic.
Parents are very pleased with the education their children are getting at the
school but they are concerned about the size of the classrooms.
These
classrooms are not the regular size classrooms either. They are a little bit
smaller. When you're talking 29 children in a classroom and the possibility up
to 31, that's too many students in a class. The teachers don't have the
opportunity to do the one-on-one that some of these students need. It's very
important that we look at this. Our children are our future. The best education
that we can invest in for these children, that's what we should be doing.
In this
particular school, there is no cafeteria. It's a huge problem. Socially, when
you use combined classes and children are in small numbers, are away from their
grades, whether it's grade four or grade five, they don't have the opportunity
to mingle, to socialize with students of their own age and own group.
When we
don't have the adequate space in those schools, it's important that we give them
the best possible education. I feel and the parents feel in this school that
combining classes is not the best education that their children can get in this
school because there is not adequate space.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for St. John's Centre to introduce the resolution standing in
her name, Motion 1.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand and I move: WHEREAS while national unemployment has reached
a record low, Newfoundland and Labrador's unemployment rate of 14.8 per cent in
2017 was twice the national average; and
WHEREAS
the R8 unemployment rate is growing closer to 20 per cent, taking into account
those who have given up looking for work or are underemployed; and
WHEREAS
it is crucial for all of us to work together to address the growing unemployment
crisis; and
WHEREAS
we have seen the success of previous all-party committees on Northern shrimp and
mental health and addictions;
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to create an all-party
select committee on jobs to address the growing unemployment crisis in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Seconded
by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre, please proceed.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very happy to stand and to speak to this private Member's motion
today. I believe that we are, and we all know that we are – it's hard to use
this word “crisis,” but we are in a crisis situation in terms of the employment
and the unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador, affecting the whole province
– some areas feeling the crunch even more so than others, and it is time now for
a bold vision. The usual ways of working and addressing this issue are not
working.
When we
see that the R8 rate of unemployment is reaching 20 per cent in this – thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry.
MS. ROGERS:
When we see that the R8
unemployment rate in the province is reaching 20 per cent – it's predicted to
reach 20 per cent within this year – that means one in five people who need work
in Newfoundland and Labrador will not find full-time, adequate employment. That
is at a crisis proportion. We are over twice – we are over double the national
average of unemployment in the country.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read from this document. It's the 1986 report of the
Summary Report of the Royal Commission on
Employment and Unemployment, and it's entitled:
Building on our Strengths. This was released in 1986. That's 32
years ago, and I think it's very interesting to hear those words in this
context. Again, this is a report of a royal commission that was looking at the
issue of employment and unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So 32
years later, here we go, Mr. Speaker: “The Royal Commission on Employment and
Unemployment does not believe that there are any easy solutions to
Newfoundland's unemployment problem, but it does believe that there is much that
can be done, and much that should be done, to stimulate enterprise,
self-reliance and economic development, thereby creating jobs for people in our
province. The Commission advocates a balanced approach to the development of a
multi-sectored provincial economy, with strong goods-producing and service
sectors, small-scale and large-scale enterprises and healthy rural and urban
communities. Our vision is of an up-to-date post-industrial society in which
modern communications and transportation make it possible for people to live in
our cities, towns and small communities while being actively engaged in
productive enterprise and fully involved in a contemporary life-style.”
What we
all want today, Mr. Speaker – and these are the words of a royal commission that
had academics and people from industry who looked at the issue of employment and
unemployment in the province 32 years ago. This reads well for today in the
situation in which we find ourselves today.
They
say: “To make this vision a reality, the Commission advocates an integrated
strategy for stimulating enterprise and creating employment.” And they say,
summing up: “Most of all, to achieve this new vision, we will need a collective
act of will and a firm commitment by our whole society.”
Even
then, 32 years ago, they knew that this was not a situation, as again they said:
We do not believe that there are any easy solutions to Newfoundland's
unemployment problem. They reiterate that. Today we know there are no easy
solutions. Again, they say: “Most of all, to achieve this new vision, we will
need a collective act of will and a firm commitment by our whole society.”
“Newfoundlanders” – and Labradorians –“are an enterprising people, but our
energies need to be redirected in the ways suggested in this Report. To
eradicate unemployment, we need to have confidence in ourselves and build on our
strengths so that, together, we may forge a strong economy and society and a new
sense of self-reliance.”
Mr.
Speaker, 32 years ago this report on the royal commission was released. They are
words that resonate today that speak to the reality that we are experiencing
today, the high unemployment. The other issue that they said: “Newfoundland's
newest resource industry, oil and gas, does have employment potential, but
volatile world markets make this a very uncertain industry.” Boy, have we ever
felt that in the last few years, that volatile markets make this a very
uncertain industry. We're experiencing that.
“The
Commission is cautiously optimistic, but does not believe that Newfoundland can
rely upon oil and gas to solve our economic problems.” Mr. Speaker, that's
exactly what we are experiencing today, 32 years later. We know how excited the
province was when there was exploration in oil and gas and when the drilling
started. We did see times where we felt – where a previous premier said we were
no longer a have-not province, that we were a have province. That's not what
we're seeing today. We're seeing this increasing crisis of unemployment with no
real relief in sight. Mr. Speaker, that is why I'm bringing forward this private
Member's motion.
We know
again, as stated in the report from this Royal Commission on Employment and
Unemployment, that we all have to work together. One of the things that we are
hearing across the province is that people want us to work together. People are
living the reality in their lives; they're living the reality of severe and
growing unemployment. We're seeing young folks, young families from Newfoundland
and Labrador who want to live here, who want to work here, who want to live in
their rural communities having to leave because they cannot find sustainable
employment.
We're
seeing our graduates – and let's not forget, every time someone graduates either
with an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree from Memorial University or
from our College of the North Atlantic, not only do they pay tuition and fees
but their education is also subsidized by our public money. That's as it should
be; that's a good thing.
All that
investment that we have made in people so they are well educated and able to
commit to the development of our province, they leave the province because they
cannot find sustainable employment. We need to turn that around.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe that we are at a pivot point in our province. I believe that
people across the province feel that. There's a lot of despair and desolation,
but I feel incredibly optimistic.
I
believe that we have to come forth with a bolder vision. That we have to come
forth together to build solutions but not from the top down, but to work with
the people across our province. We have to work with people in rural
communities, in urban communities, with municipalities, with indigenous peoples.
We have to work with women, with youth and with our student activists. We have
to work with people with diversity, with immigrants, with labour. We have to
work with business, with academia, with non-profit organizations, with
co-operatives, with social enterprise, with national and international experts,
with faith groups and with banks.
I had
the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of working with and sitting on the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. It too – our mental health and
addictions system – was at a crisis point. It, too, was at a tipping point and
people across the province knew it. They knew how crucial it was, how critical
it is and was to fix our mental health and addictions system. We had all kinds
of consultations done by the Department of Health, but it didn't really relate
to getting at the root causes of why our mental health and addictions system was
broken and what we really needed to do.
I've
said this in the House a number of times that I often believe, and community
economic development experts often believe as well, that those who are closest
to the problems are also often closest to the solutions. That's why I believe an
all-party committee, an all-party select committee, comprised of Members from
all parties in this House, an all-party select committee on jobs is crucial to
the sustainability and the survival of our province.
I can
continue talking about the statistics. We all know our growing unemployment
stats. We don't see a lot of mitigation in place. We also know that this Premier
has struck a Cabinet Committee on Jobs and they're doing important work, but
what we really need to do, as shown by other all-party committees, particularly
as shown by the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, is that all
of us together have to work. Work with people in their communities who have
visions of how they can make their communities sustainable; who have visions on
what employment can look like in their communities; who have ideas based on the
reality of their communities, particularly on municipal levels, whether it be
small communities or larger communities like St. John's or Corner Brook or CBS.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to do something different. We have to take a qualitative leap.
We have to take a bold step in order to rebuild our communities. Without a
vision, without the work at a grassroots level, where communities can clearly
articulate how they envision living together, how they envision working
together, what do their communities need.
There
are some very good examples of that happening right now when we look at
Bonavista, which was championed by John Norman and the town council there. They
didn't look at trying to create jobs in the tourist area. What they did was they
looked at: Who are we? Who are we as the Town of Bonavista? How do we see
ourselves currently? What is our vision? What is our vision for the very close
future? What is our vision 10 years down the road? How do we make our
communities more livable?
By
making our communities more livable, by doing an assets inventory, then there is
a happiness potion in that community and people are moving to Bonavista because
the people in Bonavista together have built a vision of how they want to see
their community grow and flourish.
That's
what we have to do in conjunction with communities throughout the province, Mr.
Speaker. Only then can we start building the programs, the policies and the
plans to get towards those visions. Without an overarching vision – and that
can't be done on the eighth floor here in Confederation Building. That has to be
embedded in the communities, in the lived realities of the people who are living
in our communities across the province, and only then can we build a viable
plan.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the ongoing debate on this.
MR. SPEAKER:
(Warr): The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, it's a pleasure for me to speak today. I find it somewhat ironic that
the Members of the Third Party has now, all of a sudden, got the answers to
employment when they're against the Grieg project. They're against Canopy. They
want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the
jury is still out on that. We know that there are some significant issues.
As a
government, we have taken – in consultation with the people in the province,
including employers, the labour groups – information and we have been proactive
in making sure that our minimum wage is in line with the Consumer Price Index.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the Members opposite keep putting in numbers that they'd
like to have or like to see. That's part of it. There are economists out there
that have one view and there are economists that have other views.
Well,
there are a couple of these quotes that I want to make. The Bank of Canada
estimates that there will be about 60,000 fewer jobs by 2019 in Ontario due to
increases in the minimum wages – I'm sorry, that would be across the country. TD
bank estimates Ontario alone will lose 90,000 jobs by 2020.
We are
expected to sit and really take advice or information from the Third Party when
we're looking at issues like that, Mr. Speaker. For us it's important to make
sure – and we are doing that – that we are positioning ourselves for employment
in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, in January of this year, Statistics Canada reported that Ontario lost
nearly 60,000 part-time jobs as its new $14 minimum wage came into effect. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated Ontario's minimum wage
increases would cost up to 155,900 jobs for young people. Their report noted
over 60 per cent of minimum wage earners in Canada are between the ages of 15
and 24. As minimum wage increases, they become the most vulnerable group in the
economy. Since then, we have seen Ontario add jobs but decrease their amount of
full-time employed citizens.
Economists are divided as to whether minimum wage increases cause job losses.
There is research to suggest a reduction in jobs or hours following wage
increases, but other studies, primarily in the United States, showed no
long-term connection between wages and dips in employment rates. Mr. Speaker, as
I said, it depends on what side of the fence you want to make those comments.
The fact
remains there is a potential for negative impacts on employment in the labour
market from significant increases in the minimum wage. One has to wonder why the
NDP is calling for a significant increase to minimum wage to $15 an hour, which
is significantly higher than any of the Atlantic provinces, when they appear to
be concerned about unemployment.
On May
17, just last week, the St. John's Board of Trade commended government for tying
the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index. The board said: “This form of
measurement will provide employers and employees a predictable way to prepare
for future increases.”
The
board's statement also said: “Arbitrarily increasing the minimum wage when it is
not tied to an economic indicator creates a substantial strain on small business
and would be the death nail for some business owners who are already struggling
in a tough period for our province.”
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council was also pleased with government's
decision to index the minimum wage to the national Consumer Price Index.
Executive director Richard Alexander described the announcement as a relief. He
said: A jump to a $15-an-hour minimum wage, when government has already
significantly raised taxes to business through tax increases would have an
extreme impact to employers. Both the Board of Trade and the Employers' Council
said that indexing the minimum wage takes the politics out of it and bases it on
actual economic indicators.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite, when she spoke a few minutes ago – again, it's
convenient when you take numbers. She conveniently took the number R8. Now, how
many people in this province have ever heard of R8 when it comes to
unemployment?
The
reason they haven't heard of that is because it's not used. R8 unemployment
rates include discouraged workers and also part-time workers. That's what the R8
includes. As a matter of fact, if you go on and look at the Canadian numbers –
the Canadian numbers, if you use R8, are double what the normal numbers of
unemployment are.
According to the Labour Force Survey, these are the real numbers. According to
the Labour Force Survey annual results, the unemployment rate for 2017 was 14.8
per cent; slightly higher than the 13.4 per cent recorded in 2016. The
employment rate for 2017 was 50.3 per cent, a decrease of 52.4 per cent in 2016
because we know there are an aging group that are aging out will have an impact
on these numbers.
Mr.
Speaker, a concern we have as a government is looking at what was in 2013 – when
the peak of the megaprojects were in place, the unemployment rate was 11.6 per
cent. Today, in 2017, it's 14.8 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that does in fact lead us
to have concerns. That's the reason we have the Cabinet Committee on Jobs put in
place, to ensure that we're looking at different sectors.
Mr.
Speaker, there may be some criticism outside from the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business that says we shouldn't be looking at sectors. Well, I think
it's important that we look at sectors because we're looking at significant
sectors in this province. We're looking at opportunities in agriculture. We're
looking at opportunities in technology. Now we're looking at opportunities in
mining and so on and so forth to address some of these issues.
Mr.
Speaker, not only that, we're also looking at and we have started discussions on
a comprehensive human resources plan. In that comprehensive human resources
plan, we will be looking at and engaging people within the province in looking
at opportunities that might be in the province whereby we can improve and look
at opportunities for further employment.
The
Cabinet Committee on Jobs include: the Premier, Ministers of Finance, myself,
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, Fisheries and Land Resources, Health and
Community Services, Municipal Affairs and Environment, Natural Resources,
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Mr. Speaker, removing myself from
that, I can say there's a lot of expertise around that table and I won't say I'm
included in that, but I'm making reference to my colleagues.
There's
a lot of information when we address these sectors and look at job opportunities
and employment opportunities. Creating jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
is key to improving our economy and achieving our vision of a stronger province.
Our
government is working to address challenges and take full advantage of
opportunities that are specific to sectors that have strong growth potential.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the last year, year-and-a-half, we have talked about the
enormous amount of land that has been made available for farmers for
agriculture. That in itself is a tremendous potential.
In
September 2017, the Premier and the Cabinet Committee on Jobs joined the
Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association to launch a work plan that creates
and includes 28 different actions to promote aquaculture development. Our
government and the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association share a goal of
growing salmon production to 50,000 metric tons annually and mussel production
to more than 10,000 tons annually. By doing this, we will more than double the
number of year-round jobs in the province's aquaculture industry from 1,000 to
2,100.
In
October 2017, the committee joined the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Agriculture, community, academia, business leaders, university students to
launch the agriculture sector work plan. It lists 43 actions that government and
its partners are working through to promote new careers and bright futures in
agriculture. The overall goal is to double the province's food self-sufficiency
to at least 20 per cent by 2022. This will generate an additional 500 person
years of employment and help our government increase the number of fruits and
vegetables that are eaten in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, very quickly my time is running out, so I'm going to skip a few of my
notes that I wanted to talk about. I wanted to get into a comprehensive human
resource plan – that's been mandated in my letter to do – to ensure that we do
have that. In The Way Forward
government has committed to “commence the development of a comprehensive human
resource plan to support sector diversification and the development of a
productive and knowledge-intensive economy. This plan will be informed by
forecasted labour market opportunities and enhanced labour market information
products to assist in workforce planning for individuals and businesses.” This
work will include working with priority sectors, including the aquaculture, the
agriculture, the technology, the mining, the forestry and community sectors,
among others.
Mr. Speaker, we are becoming inclusive and looking at
opportunities outside of the Cabinet Committee on Jobs to engage people that are
working in these sectors – front-line workers, people that are engaged – so that
we do have a good human resource plan in place. This commitment is included in
my ministerial mandate letter. As well as working with post-secondary
institutions, youth and employers to ensure appropriate skills training programs
are available; identifying the skills, the qualifications, the training required
by the oil and gas industry and other priority sectors; and strengthening
apprenticeship programs.
The development of a comprehensive human resource plan
involves significant collaboration with sector associations, industry groups, to
better respond to their private sector labour market needs, and support the
industry diversification. The comprehensive human resource plan will be informed
by forecasted labour market opportunities and enhanced labour market information
products, assisting workforce planning for individuals and for businesses. This
will include, Mr. Speaker, program planning for post-secondary institutions and
enhancing the K to 12 system to better prepare our youth for advanced education
and career decision making.
The comprehensive human resource plan will also consider
the needs of underrepresented groups in the labour market, such as persons with
disabilities, youth, indigenous people, older workers and newcomers to this
province. Mr. Speaker, we are working to ensure that we provide an environment
and an economic climate so we're engaging many of these associations and groups.
We're not excluding people; we're giving people an
opportunity to have input. The Members of the Third Party, as well, can have
input into where we're going.
As the labour market information is an overarching component of this plan, in
spring of 2017, government established the LMI governance committee. The
governance committee has assisted in understanding the current labour market
environment in order to plan and prepare individuals for employment
opportunities.
On
January 9, 2018 the governance committee hosted a full-day LMI forum, actively
engaging industry across multiple sectors. Information and recommendations
generated from discussions will inform the development of a new generation of
LMI products to meet the challenging needs of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, supporting the Cabinet Committee on Jobs industry action plan, as well
as the work of the comprehensive human resource plan, AESL is committed to
supporting labour market, industry-led initiatives, including labour market
partnerships, funding to support sector-specific research into labour market
needs for these sectors.
Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately my time is up, but I just want to make mention that we
are working closely with these associations: the Newfoundland Aquaculture
Industry; we're working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Agriculture; we're working with the NEIA, the NATI, the CMI and any other group
that will give us insight into labour in the future.
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.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on this private Member's motion today, as it is
every opportunity we get to stand in the House and speak on any motion that
affects the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, yes, we acknowledge the rate of unemployment in
Newfoundland and Labrador is exceptionally high. And who could deny that? It's
getting worse – even worse than the numbers indicate because discouraged people
who have given up hunting for jobs are not even counted as unemployed. Too many
people can't support themselves and their families; too many people can't build
careers here with the excellent skills they have; too many people can't afford
to stay here. But the more important question is: What's our solution? That's
where the parties fundamentally differ.
Some on
the left said we need to require companies and people with healthy incomes to
pay more in taxes and royalties, and then those revenues would provide a wider
array of public services, creating good jobs for more public employees while
maintaining a comprehensive, publicly funded, cradle-to-grave support network
for people in need.
That's
one approach. There's another approach. Some believe that the private sector is
principally responsible for driving job growth. Some say we need to create a
climate for business to thrive, which means lowering the burden of taxes on
consumers and employers and finding new ways to provide essential services while
making better choices in managing the people's money.
That's a
real choice: bigger government with bigger tax bill, or smaller government with
smaller tax bill. Those are vastly different approaches, Mr. Speaker. So how do
you choose? Which approach works? Well, our province has endured three years of
a high-tax approach. We see where that has got us. Liberals are so shammed of
their approach they're pretending they didn't choose it.
Yesterday, the Liberals stood to challenge the idea that they imposed more than
300 tax and fee increases. That's old new, they said. Well, no, it's not old
news, Mr. Speaker. We had no choice, they said. Well, yes, you did have a
choice. Instead of taking a measured, balanced, evidence-based approach, the
Liberals imposed more than 300 tax and fee increases virtually across the board
in their first budget in 2016. They left almost all those increases in place in
their second budget in 2017. And they left almost all of those increases in
place in their third budget in 2018.
Members
opposite sometimes like to always say I'm in the past; I'm talking about the
2016 budget all the time. That's why, because we're talking about the same
budget year over year over year, and we're still into it.
So the
high Liberal taxation is not an old headline; it's a current news headline in
Newfoundland and Labrador, right up to date. The crushing of taxpayers is
happening right here, right now in our province. Families everywhere are feeling
it; employers everywhere are feeling it. The government opposite is a
tax-and-spend administration. They said they wouldn't be. They said they'd be
zero-based budgeters. They said everything was on the table, but it wasn't.
Agencies, boards and commissions were not on the table; attrition was not on the
table; patronage was not on the table; eliminating waste was not on the table.
They had a chance to strike a good balance. They failed. Their approach has made
things worse. The jobless numbers have grown worse. They have not made
Newfoundland and Labrador stronger; they've actually made Newfoundland and
Labrador weaker.
The NDP
agrees with us that our province is weaker; they see the crisis. What they fail
to see is the same solution. The NDP tell us they hate high taxes, they tell us
they'd reduce high taxes, but they also call for universal programs that require
hiring more public employees because they oppose public-private partnerships.
That would require more public spending, which of course would mean more high
taxes, at least for some.
The NDP
difference is that they would shift the burden of tax to those with greater
means: the larger companies, the wealthier people, but this province does not
have enough wealthy to support what they are calling for. So the burden will
quickly fall on families living cheque to cheque. Tax on goods would continue to
get out of hand.
The
solution won't solve the fundamental problems. What we need is a different
approach, one that appreciates the transformative value of free enterprise. It
doesn't mean there is no role for government. It means that government must be a
facilitator of growth, not the engine. Admittedly, some people hate this kind of
talk. They believe government is the answer and business is the source of money
to pay for it, but the evidence shows that approach does not work. Why doesn't
it work? Because the economy that fails to grow simply feeds upon itself.
In order
to grow, an economy has to bring new money, new wealth. The engine of that kind
of growth is free enterprise. When governments take their hands out of people's
pockets, then people have additional money to spend as they see fit. Extra
consumer spending drives hiring and production and expansion by employers. When
the tax burden is low, employers can compete beyond our borders. That's the
approach the previous government tried for years and it was working.
When
businesses can compete abroad selling local products, then new wealth flows in
our economy from the outside, and that creates new jobs. When governments raise
taxes they draw money out of consumers' pockets, out of employers' pockets and
out of investors' pockets. They hamper our trading prospects.
Such a
government isn't creating jobs, it's removing the money that consumers,
employers and investors need to create jobs and drive growth. It is making our
local businesses less competitive. It's making our local investment climate less
attractive, and because our investors and employers have choices, they will
choose to do business elsewhere where their money will go further. Not
surprisingly, elsewhere is where the opportunities have been going, along with
our people.
Liberal
taxes have starved consumers of spending power which has starved employers of
hiring power and investing power. Our local businesses have struggled; many have
slipped into bankruptcy. That's not an accident, Mr. Speaker, it's a cause and
effect scenario.
Jobs
don't disappear when business is good. Job opportunities grow when business is
good, but business stops being good when people stop spending, and that's what's
happened in this province. People stop spending when governments have their
hands deep into their wallets, which has also happened in this province.
When
people have less to spend, businesses earn less and fail more. We've seen that
also in this province. When businesses fail people lose jobs; something else
we've seen in our province. Job losses mean even fewer people with money to
spend, and that is something that we hear. I know Members of this House, I being
one of them, I hear a lot of people tell me that from day to day things are
tighter; the money is not as plentiful as it was.
It's a
downward spiral. It's a war of attrition. A government that overtaxes is always
disappointed with its haul. There's less and less income to tax, less in retail
sales to tax, less in corporate profits to tax and less revenue to pay
government's big bills. That's exactly what this province is experiencing today
and, still, the Liberals talk about new taxes.
Speaking
of which, they're ready to impose the carbon tax. I speak about that weekly in
this House; it's been an issue that I continually bring up. I believe that
eventually people will catch on and people will realize actually what's
happening. I think right now it's just one of those things that sometimes we
talk about issues and it doesn't resonate with the public. Until it does, and
when it does, it usually gets legs. As the saying goes, it sticks and it becomes
a huge issue.
I
believe the carbon tax is exactly what will happen with the carbon tax in this
province. I said this before and I'll say it in here now, a lot of people do not
realize or have not really looked into it. This is not a complicated issue to
understand, it's just people are not taking an interest. When you really sink
your teeth into it and you look into what the carbon tax is, the carbon tax is
what it is, it's a tax. It's another tax that's going to affect each and every
individual in this province. It's not just the big emitters, it's not the big
industry we're talking about, we're talking about me and you, Mr. Speaker, every
individual, every family in this province.
I've
asked two ministers now responsible for the Environment what it's going to cost
a family in this province. What's the extra cost burden on a family of four, for
instance, in this province, your traditional family? Myself, I have a family of
four. How much is that going to cost those families? We've not been given a
number. We have anecdotal information from the Conference Board of Canada that
it's $2,500 a family, but these are approximate. It may be more, it may be less.
People want to know.
It's an
issue that I feel is important. It's in my critic role but I took an interest in
it. I've done a lot of reading up on it and I think it is a very important
issue. It's an issue that's important elsewhere in the country and it has not
caught on here yet. It will. Eventually it will. When the government rolls out
whatever plan they're going to roll out in September and people start to realize
the effects of this, it will get legs. It should get legs because it's another
tax. It's another burden on families. It's another burden on every individual in
this province.
When I
say the 300 new taxes and fees and whatever – and Members opposite sometimes
take offence to it and they'll get points of order. I get all that. That's fine;
it's trying to change the channel. But no one can dispute the carbon tax is a
tax that's going to affect each and every one of us. Regardless of the amount,
which we can't put our finger on, it's going to be another cost to families.
That
just adds into the bigger picture of these new taxes and fees, and I think it's
one that's very important. I do look forward to more conversation and more
dialogue from the general public, because I do believe when people start paying
more attention it will become a bigger issue. I look forward to their commentary
and government's action. Right now we haven't seen much action on the file. I'm
sure there's stuff happening behind the scenes.
Again,
we're waiting, and the public and the province are waiting to see how this plan
unfolds and what it's going to cost each and every one of us. Like I said, we
don't feel we should have to pay a penny of that, Mr. Speaker. We feel the
Liberals should be fighting it; instead they're trying to find a way to hide it.
Tax and spend does not work.
On that
note, the Province of Saskatchewan has gone to court on the issue. You have the
Jason Kenney Conservatives, the United Conservative Party, I guess UCP,
whatever, in Alberta. The Conservative Party are fighting the carbon tax. We
have Ontario –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member to stay to the text that's involved in the PMR.
MR. PETTEN:
And which I'm doing, Mr.
Speaker. We're talking carbon tax, and I'm just trying to bring examples of the
tax.
We feel
this tax needs a lot of work. Again, it's a tax. I know the government opposite
doesn't like to hear the word and don't like me talking about it, but I guess
that will continue to be until it gets to the issue it needs to be, then we'll
all be talking about it.
In our
party, we continually say government needs to stop strangling our economy. Stop
strangling consumers and families, employers and businesses. Free enterprise
activities are what this economy needs to grow. We're like the voice crying in
the wilderness, Mr. Speaker, and I just said carbon tax seems to be that way,
too.
The
Liberals refuse to acknowledge that they have made matters worse with their
misguided fiscal and economic policies. Even today, they are rhyming off one
figure after another to try to convince people that everything is okay, or it's
the Tories who are to blame. But you can't blame the Tories for a Liberal
decision to overtax our people and employers in a fragile economy.
Instead
of trying to whitewash their dismal record, maybe they should choose some honest
soul-searching. Maybe they should start looking at the economies that are
succeeding, unlike our own. Look at the most prosperous jurisdictions in the
world today. Look at the most successful employers. It is commerce that is
fueling their growth, even in countries famous for socialism. The revolution in
growth is driven by commerce. Commerce that is increasingly free of barriers.
We can't
join that growth revolution abroad if we are crushed by over taxation at home.
We have to get with the program. We have to stop feeding on ourselves. We have
to plan budgets that recognize the realities in jurisdictions outside our own.
We are not an economic island. We have to be part of the global community and
achieve growth in production and sales. We have to innovate the ways others are
innovating. We have to give our companies the space they need to be competitive
in the global marketplace and that means cutting away the chains of taxation and
red tape that are holding them back.
When
business leaders tell us over and over again that businesses need reduced
burdens of taxation and red tape in order to grow, why do politicians keep
challenging them? Why are they ridiculed as if they are greedy or self-centered?
They are giving us insights that we need to take to heart.
We are
denying them the sunshine they need to grow and telling them it's their
advantage when it's not. Solutions that will grow their enterprise, will grow
our economy and the best solution a government can give to businesses in this
province is usually to get out of the way.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That was
quite a manifesto from my hon. colleague from across the way and felt almost
like I was back in my political theory class at the university that I took as
part of my political science degree, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the reminders of the ideological spectrum. I wish they had considered
that when they were devising –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
– their jobs plan for Romania, Mr. Speaker, when they shipped off all the jobs
that could have been done in Marystown to Romania because I'm sure the
Government of Romania certainly appreciated the assistance of Members opposite
on their jobs plan.
Mr.
Speaker, it's certainly an honour to stand here and speak to this private
Member's resolution today. I thank the Member opposite for bringing it forward,
but something I think very important to consider, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that
over a year ago, the Premier devised and created the Cabinet Committee on Jobs.
That Committee has been diligently undertaking its work in partnership with
community, Mr. Speaker.
What we
heard the Leader of the Third Party talk about was working with community,
talking with community and working with industry. That's why, Mr. Speaker, we've
hosted already three industry summits which have produced Sector Work Plans on
agriculture, on technology and on aquaculture.
Look at
aquaculture alone, The Way Forward
commits to bringing salmon production to 50,000 metric tons, Mr. Speaker. Taking
mussel production to 10,750 metric tons. That's what's committed to in
partnership with the industry.
At any
of the industry summits that I've attended, whether it's aquaculture,
agriculture or technology, the industry associations have been there. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite, I suggest, would be flabbergasted to hear the
positive reviews from the industry associations saying they've never had this
level of engagement from government before, Mr. Speaker.
So I say
to the Leader of the Third Party, this is certainly not a top-down approach.
This is very much engagement at the community level.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. BROWNE:
Just as it is, Mr. Speaker, 1,700 names on a petition for the Grieg project in
Marystown. We've heard the negative commentary from the Leader of the Third
Party and others, Mr. Speaker, degrading the project, but yet refusing to engage
with the people of the Burin Peninsula; refusing to put their views on the
table.
All we
are asking for is a fair shake, for an ability for people to get back to work on
the Burin Peninsula, in Placentia Bay and elsewhere. We have been working
diligently to create jobs, not add more layers of bureaucracy in governance, Mr.
Speaker.
Take the
Canada Fluorspar project, and I commend the Member for Burin - Grand Bank who
worked so hard on this file. A $17 million repayable loan has put hundreds of
people back to work in St. Lawrence, something that a former administration, as
I've said before, cut the ribbon so often they couldn't even find the ribbon to
cut it there last summer, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm hitting a nerve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
I'm
having difficulty hearing the hon. Member speak. I ask for the co-operation of
the House.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm hitting nerve, and I won't stop standing up for the people of
the Burin Peninsula and Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I know what people at home are thinking. I know what they're asking
themselves. I know what they're thinking. They're saying: The Members opposite
are saying they supported the project in St. Lawrence. Well, why did they vote
against it in the budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
They voted against it, Mr. Speaker. They refused to support economic development
in ways that this government had to pick up the slack from their 12 years.
Mr.
Speaker, I hear the questions coming from surf clam every day. Where were the
questions on the Marystown fish plant? The Marystown fish plant is a heap of
rubble because they let it fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. BROWNE:
They let it go down; go up the road to the Burin High Liner fish plant, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, it's gone. It's closed, on their watch, despite the promises to the
people of the Burin Peninsula, you did not deliver on, I say to Members of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
When we look at the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, they've been promoting messaging
that clearly is against the Grieg project. We have 1,700 people on the Burin
Peninsula.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How many?
MR. BROWNE:
Seventeen hundred.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been involved in this file. The Member for Burin - Grand Bank
has.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order please!
MR. BROWNE:
I invite Members of the Opposition, as I have, Mr. Speaker, come to the Burin
Peninsula and put your views on the table.
It was
just yesterday, we heard a Member of the Opposition –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask once more for the
co-operation of all Members in the House. I'm having very much difficultly
hearing the hon. Member speak. I ask for full co-operation of the House.
I want
to hear the hon. Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, it was just
yesterday, we heard from the Opposition benches, calls that industry be moved
out of St. John's into rural Newfoundland. That's what we heard yesterday, but I
want to say very clearly, I don't believe it's an either/or proposition. I
believe that we can support both urban and rural areas to spur economic growth
and spawn economic development.
It's
very important that we work together and address, through partnerships, the
ability to support urban and rural areas.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Don't forget the shipyard.
MR. BROWNE:
The shipyard in Marystown,
Mr. Speaker, is a file near and dear to my heart. It's something that, again,
was left dormant under the former administration, and I have not heard from the
Third Party on their views on the shipyard.
My view
of today's private Member's motion is that we have a Committee on Jobs
established. It's been working for a year. There are already three Sector Work
Plans with agriculture, aquaculture and technology. There will be more to come.
So I
believe all Members of this House have an ability to input into that process and
work with the government, work with the industry associations, work in our
partnerships to ensure that we continue supporting economic development, because
as the only Member of this Legislature – probably, I would think – under 30, I
believe young people want to stay home. I believe people do want to start
families here. I believe people do want a future here.
The more
negativity that we hear coming out of the Opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, at
some point – I've said it before – they're going to have to take responsibility
that their rhetoric is driving people away. You have to take responsibly.
We have
made strategic investments into jobs. I heard the Member opposite for Conception
Bay South earlier talking that this government hasn't addressed attrition. Well,
we have, you should check your facts or ask your researchers to do so, I say.
Perhaps he could update himself on the fact that we have made administrative
efficiencies.
Take no
closer look than the Research & Development Corporation; moving that into
government took a $3 million savings, Mr. Speaker, that we can now put back into
innovation here in the province. Apparently, the Members of the Opposition don't
think that's a good idea.
Just
last week, we announced a $750,000 investment into Quorum Information Systems,
Mr. Speaker. They already have 96 full-time employees here in the city. They do
all the software development for car dealerships. It's amazing to know what's
right underneath our noses here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the amazing
technology and development that's occurring right here in St. John's and across
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
$750,000 investment that was made through our department, Mr. Speaker, will spur
an additional 24 permanent new hires, 24 new jobs.
I say to
the Members opposite, if you had not left a $2.7 billion deficit in our lap we
would've had a lot more to work with. Talk about the carbon tax, talk about fee
increases? The biggest tax this province will ever face is Muskrat Falls, and my
generation will be left to pay for your failings, I say to Members opposite.
So I'm
fully aware, Mr. Speaker, fully aware of the impact decisions that this
Legislature takes can have on the ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is why we're taking the methodical approach, Mr. Speaker, an approach that
respects industry associations, respects communities, municipalities, respects
everyone involved and includes their input, which includes Members of the House
of Assembly. I certainly hope that people will take a constructive approach.
I know
the Minister of Finance had pre-budget consultations, invited Members opposite.
They did not attend, Mr. Speaker. They refused to have that session. I also know
that Grieg, who I have 1,700 names on a petition in support. I know that a
particular Member of the Opposition who has spoken against this project was
asked, was invited to a meeting by the company and refused. So refusing to learn
and be educated about the impacts to the area I represent, Mr. Speaker.
We have
many examples, Mr. Speaker. In spring of 2017 we made a $3 million investment
with PAL for the Force Multiplier project. This will result in 150 person years
of employment over five years – 150 person years of employment over five years.
That's what's occurring under the leadership of this Premier and this
government, Mr. Speaker. We are making strategic investments that make sense.
We're certainly not shipping off anything to Romania let me guarantee you of
that.
I can
tell you, it disappoints me when I look at strong projects like the Canada
Fluorspar project in St. Lawrence being voted against by Members of the
Opposition. Voted against, Mr. Speaker. Could you even believe it? Could you
even fathom that hundreds of jobs in St. Lawrence today could be voted against
by Members opposite?
I know
people at home must be saying to themselves, is that what they done? Well, that
is what they done, Mr. Speaker. I'm here to confirm that to the people of the
province, that that is what happened.
I can
also confirm, Mr. Speaker, I can also assure people who are watching at home and
the people of the province, that we will always have a steady hand at the wheel;
that we will always put jobs as our first priority. That is why I was so proud
of our government when we unveiled the Cabinet Committee on Jobs.
I can
tell you, as an MHA, I will never advocate that jobs and industry leave my
region and go to another. I can guarantee you of that, Mr. Speaker. I will be
fair to all regions of the province, but never would I stand in this
Legislature, as I heard yesterday, and advocate that an industry leave my area
and go to another. I would never do that.
I can
tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to support industry. This
province is open for business. We will continue making strategic investments
that leverage additional dollars, whether it's at the federal level or through
the private sector, no differently than when we supported the Superclusters
Initiative, Mr. Speaker, which has leveraged millions and millions of dollars of
federal money.
What I
say to Members of the Opposition: if you're so proud of your record on the Burin
Peninsula, come down and talk to the people about your record in Marystown with
the fish plant; or Burin with the fish plant, or your views on greed. I invite
you. I will host you, in fact, Mr. Speaker. I have no issue doing that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. BROWNE:
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
I invite Members of the Opposition to come and visit and put your views on the
table. We can have all the committees we want in this Legislature, protected
under the dome of parliamentary democracy –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
– but show up in the
communities. If we are serious, Mr. Speaker, show up in the communities and tell
people what your views are. Defend what you did when the Marystown fish plant
went from a thriving workforce of 500 people to nothing today. There are no
workers at the Marystown fish plant. It's a heap of rubble. A slab of concrete,
and I am very –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
– very passionate, Mr.
Speaker, about these issues. Very passionate about these issues, because the
people that I represent are asking me –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
– and I said to the Member,
the surf clam issue is of exclusive federal jurisdiction, the Marystown fish
plant was provincial jurisdiction and went on your watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
This is
my last warning. I'm having very much difficulty hearing the hon. Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue. He's the only person I care to hear.
Proceed.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I know we all have passionate debate in this Legislature and I
encourage that. We all feel very strongly for the people we represent and the
people of the province. I certainly thank Members opposite for bringing these
issues forward and I certainly want to thank you for your contributions to the
debate here in the Legislature.
Mr.
Speaker, I hope that by the end of today's debate I hear a firm position on the
Grieg project from all Members and all sides of the Legislature, because we now
have 1,700 names and counting on the Burin Peninsula, in Placentia Bay. The
people want to know, where do we all stand? They want more than committees and
structures in place, Mr. Speaker. They want results. That's why we have sector
action plans. That's why we're supporting strategic investment, supporting
innovation and we will continue to do so.
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 very
happy to stand this afternoon and speak to the motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand this afternoon and speak to the private Member's motion which was
moved by the Member for St. John's Centre, which I'm delighted to have seconded,
because this motion deals with something that's very important to us in this
province today.
I find
it very disturbing that we have theatrics going on here in this House instead of
looking at the situation that we're dealing with. The resolution is that the
“House of Assembly urge Government to create an all-party Select Committee on
Jobs to address the growing unemployment crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador.”
For the
government Members to stand and to act as if there isn't a growing unemployment
crisis is just irresponsible. Their documents, in their own budget documents –
the facts are there. The facts show in the booklet that's called
The Economy that our unemployment rate
is going up and our numbers of people employed is going down. That is a reality
and it's a pattern, Mr. Speaker. It's a trend that has been going on now for two
years, and the trend will be continuing with next year's budget and the budget
after, and the government knows that.
What
we're calling for here this afternoon is for us to recognize the problem in the
province and to work together in a select committee to seriously deal with this
problem. It just seems so logical to me that we would do that. And maybe the
Members of the House – some don't have a very long history in the Legislature
and certainly members of the public don't understand what an all-party select
committee is. It's a very, very, important body.
The
committee that's set up as a select committee gets its authority from the House
that appoints it and the committee has the power that all statutory committees
have. It would have all parties represented on the committee, number one. Number
two, it has the power to look for evidence, to have evidence brought to them by
witnesses. They have the power to hold public meetings. They get the resources
to do the work that they need to do.
It's a
very, very common practice in legislatures. Up to the year 2001, it was
something that was very common here in our own history going back to the
mid-1800s and almost every year – there were some years, I think, 1998 for
example, there were three select committees; 1996 there were two. You had years
with more than one select committee. It is part of the legislative system, Mr.
Speaker, and this is what is so frustrating. We're not talking about bringing in
something strange, something that's extraneous, something that's outside of our
system. We're talking about using something that's in our system.
What we
have, we have a book that's called our Standing Orders; it's the book that sort
of regulates what happens in the Legislature. In the Standing Orders there is a
full recognition of what select committees are. It gives the number of people
who should be on it. It talks about the power that the select committee has. The
select committee has the same powers as the standing committees that we have. As
I said, they can call witnesses, they can publicly hold meetings and they can
gather evidence that is important to deal with the issue.
It is
just so logical. For the government to deny that we have a problem right now, is
just not right; it is wrong. Even in the Estimates, when I was in the AESL
Estimates, I guess, to be in Estimates and to be told that the numbers of the
students in our college system are going down, that the numbers of students from
Newfoundland and Labrador in our university are going down, that the numbers of
children being born are going down. Why do we have a smaller budget, for
example, in the budget for mothers and breastfeeding? Because there are fewer
children; there are fewer applications for that money.
So we
were presented all this information in Estimates by your departments. We have
your documentation giving us the statistics. We are not making them up. They
aren't statistics that have just come from the top of our heads. Yet you are
acting as if we don't have a problem. What is wrong with all of us working
together to try to get some answers to this problem?
I'm sure
government has – they're saying they have a plan. But there are more heads in
here than just the people who are calling themselves government. We were all
elected to represent the people and that's what a select committee is about, all
of us working together.
The
Member for – I always forget the new names – Placentia West - Bellevue just
referred to working together. Well, that's what we're talking about, is working
together. Working together is not government saying this is what we're going do
and all of us saying yay, yay, yay we're going to do what government wants to
do.
Government is us sitting down together in a select committee, for example, and
reaching out to the community, looking for the expertise out there, working with
a select committee to come up with the ideas so that we can deal with our
employment-unemployment issue because that's what it is. And it is a crisis.
Let's
look at some of the select committees that have existed in the province. I won't
go through all of them but a couple, like the last one in 2001 actually, was a
Select Committee on Recovery of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs. That was a
really important issue. The report of that committee lead to a bill, Bill 9,
which became An Act to Provide for the Recovery of Tobacco Related Health Care
Costs, and it is still a statue today. So that Select Committee resulted in
getting a bill in place.
That
committee in particular, we have a full report from them; they tabled the report
on May 14 in 2001. They actually were formed in early April, so they really saw
their work as urgent, and they really got working really, really quickly as a
select committee. They conducted public hearings over a period of 10 days,
during which it heard from individuals and groups who witnessed first-hand the
devastating effects of tobacco use, members of the health community, as well as
representatives of tobacco industry.
So here
were some of the groups that backed the last one that we had in this House –
here's some of the groups who met with them, who appeared publicly and
presented: the Newfoundland and Labrador Alliance for the Control of Tobacco;
the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Bakery,
Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' Union; the NLMA; the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador; Health and Community Service,
Western Region; the Lung Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I can go
on. You know, even the Department of Justice made representation to the Select
Committee. And that committee, as I said, resulted in creating the bill which is
still in place, and it's interesting to note that that bill was modeled after
legislation in British Columbia. So that resulted because of a select committee.
What was another select committee?
A very
interesting one, in 1998 – one of the three in 1998 – a Select Committee
on Arming Policy of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and this committee was
tasked by the House of Assembly with investigating the arming policy of the RNC
at the time. RNC officers did not carry side arms then; however, government
policy said the RNC had reasonable access to guns if they needed them. The
committee was asked to investigate this question: Did the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary have reasonable access to firearms while responding to an emergency
situation?
And the committee again – carrying out the duties of a
select committee – consulted, held meetings, and they came to the unanimous
conclusion of the committee – which is a committee representing all parties in
the house – the unanimous conclusion was no, the RNC did not have reasonable
access to firearms while responding to an emergency situation. Therefore, they
made this recommendation; it was the number one recommendation of the committee:
“Whereas the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is an armed force and has been an
armed force since 1991 and whereas the existing policy limits access to
firearms, which are now kept in a locked box in the locked trunk of a police
patrol vehicle, the Committee hereby recommends that the arming policy of the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary be amended to permit its members on operational
duty to wear sidearms as part of their regular uniform.”
And there were other recommendations, but this committee
decision led to the RNC being able to carry side arms in the course of their
duties. In his comments introducing the report of the Select Committee, the MHA
for Topsail at that time said: First of all, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their non-partisan
approach and in-depth deliberations on such an important
issue, and that's what I want
to speak to, the non-partisan approach. The fact that everybody could sit on
that committee together, get the same evidence, listen to the same evidence, all
be there for the same discussions and could come to a unanimous position.
It's
interesting because one of the things that's demanded of our select committees
is that anybody who's sitting on the committee cannot have an attitude against
what the role of the committee is. I think that's very interesting. You have to
go in open to really pursue, to really search for answers.
What was
another one? This will be my last example. Again, this was 1998. As I said,
there were three Select Committees in 1998. So we're not talking about something
strange here. It makes all the sense in the world.
So that
Select Committee was to travel to Ottawa to present the concerns of all of the
Members of the House of Assembly and the people of the province to all federal
political party caucuses with respect to post-TAGS crisis because there was a
crisis coming up because the TAGS program was going to be ending and there was
nothing in place. The House of Assembly, everybody was quite concerned about
what was going to happen to the 20,000 residents who would soon see an end to
the TAGS program.
The
Committee made several visits to Ottawa. They took part in talks. They helped
Ottawa come to putting things in place that would help. They worked together.
It was
interesting to hear the comment for the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.
The Member was on the committee. No, she wasn't on the committee. She spoke to
the committee, and she underscored one of the key advantages of select
committees in general, saying she noted she was pleased to be part – she was on
another select committee. This is what she said: Dealing with this decision in
Ottawa, and to say that it is of crucial importance to all fisher people in all
communities within this province, there is certainly no room, no room whatsoever
in this issue to play politics on either side of this House. I think the message
that we have to send to Ottawa is one of solidarity.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's what we're asking here with this private Member's motion. Is to
show the people of the province that, together, we all understand what is going
on. Together, we are all hearing the parents of young people who, after they
graduate either from high school or university or college, are leaving in order
to find jobs. We need to show the people, together, that we're hearing the same
message, because some of the messages that I've heard from the government side
today is not the message that I'm hearing.
If we
were to put a select committee together then we would, together, hear the same
voice. We would, together, hear the witnesses. We would, together, hear what our
people are saying. Hearing that voice together might help us and understand how
to work together because we wouldn't be playing a game of playing one off
against the other.
I'm
tired of one party blaming another party for what they did in the past. Don't
blame us for what we're doing now because look at what you did in the past.
That's not helpful. That's not helpful at all. Whereas, if we have a select
committee, we sit together, we set together what the guidelines are, we decide
together who is it that we need to listen to. How do we need to listen to them?
Do it together. Have that one unanimous action together, and maybe we'll get
somewhere.
Like I
said, it's not a matter of government saying: We have the answer, now you have
to say yes to what we're saying. No, because when I hear them talking, I'm not
hearing from them the same message that I'm hearing from people in my district,
and people out on the street, no matter where I go.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd be delighted to support the bill that I seconded, obviously, but I
really would wish government could put all the partisanship aside and let us
work together on this one.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill earlier today and I had called it the
liquor control act. It's actually the Liquor Corporation Act.
In order
for them to print it properly on tomorrow's Order Paper, I need to correct that,
with leave of the House.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed. Do you want
to read the motion, Sir?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to read the motion.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah, that's okay?
MR. SPEAKER:
Just the correction is fine?
CLERK:
That's okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I understand it's fine.
Okay,
thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks
for the opportunity to speak to this motion today. I listened quite intently to
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi talking about models of Sweden and
Denmark, in particular. Quite often, countries are referred to as models for
economic development, but I want to highlight that in those Scandinavian
countries, the effective personal tax rates at the maximum levels are over 60
per cent; 60 per cent personal income tax has to pay for the social programs and
quality of life programs in countries, such as Sweden and Denmark. This is a
type of process that the Member opposite is talking about, as to how
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would pay for particular programs and services.
The
Third Party is very much against trade. They've been very much against positions
with CETA, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement. They've highlighted time
and time again, the Members opposite, about wanting all child care centres and
education around that to be universally and publicly funded, wanting to
basically shutdown private operations.
There
are a number of things that would highlight, where the Third Party talks about
wanting the minimum wage to be at $15 an hour. Whereas, the St. John's Board of
Trade applauded government's decision of tying minimum wage to an economic
indicator, such as the consumer price index, because when you look at our
Atlantic Canadian minimum wage and where we are, we are very competitive when it
comes to Atlantic Canada for a minimum wage.
When you
see the net impacts – as the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour
highlighted – that Ontario put the minimum wage up, quite significantly, and
shed over 50,000 jobs.
She's
asking for an all-party committee to come together to look at job creation.
Well, I will say to the Member opposite that the Premier, over a year ago – when
the Premier formed office he realized the mess that was left by the former
administration, a $2.7 billion deficit. That's why we have to stabilize the
position of the province, get a solid foundation and then what is needed is to
look at working with industry, working with businesses, in all sectors of the
economy, to fully diversify.
That is
why the Premier took a whole-of-government approach and created the Cabinet
Committee on Jobs. It is netting results. It has a number of Cabinet ministers
that are working synergistically with the industry, with the associations, with
community, with municipalities and with economic developers. It is an approach
that will create the environment and the atmosphere that will see private sector
jobs created in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Certainly, I believe that community building starts from the ground up and that
community problems require community input and community solutions. That is why,
as the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, I've been
travelling around the province, getting into every nook and cranny of
Newfoundland and Labrador and looking at what the opportunities are. Talking to
people, talking to community, talking to municipal leaders, talking to business
and finding out where are those strengths, where are those opportunities and
we're all doing that. All Members on this side of the House, in our districts
and in communities, are listening to people of the province to look at ways of
which new opportunities can be created. That is why we've maintained the lowest
small business tax at 3 per cent. We're the third lowest in the country.
The
Finance Minister in the budget announced that the payroll and post-secondary
benefits for taxation, the threshold will be increased. That's going to help a
number of companies here. Insurance reductions that's taking place in
Budget 2018. Workers' compensation
benefits, the rates are being reduced. These are very positive things when it
comes to employers here in the province to help spur and create economic
development. These are positive things that are happening here in the economy
when we look at where we have significant opportunity.
I would
say to the Member opposite, this is why we've created the sector work plans on
agriculture where 64,000 hectares of Crown land will become used for farm use.
It will help with our food security and it helps create new entrants, new young
farmers. We've seen those announcements take place where jobs are being created
because there's tremendous potential in agriculture. It's very unfortunate that
the former administration neglected agriculture and saw decline under their
watch.
The
aquaculture industry; seeing the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources focus
on aquaculture and making sure that salmon production is increasing and finfish
and mussel production. We have great supply chain opportunities there. As well
as the tech sector, what a gem in our province, working with four industry
associations: the aerospace and defence, meeting with Canadian manufactures and
exporters, Newfoundland Association of Technology Industries, and also the
Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association, NEIA.
We look
at clean tech; we look at all the opportunities we have in our technology sector
work plan. These initiatives will see an already $1.6 billion industry, 4,000
jobs see increased growth. We've already been through Innovate NL.
As the
Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue talked about, we rolled up a corporation, we're
finding efficiencies of which through the complete lifecycle you can now go from
something that's idea phase, pre-commercial to commercial, to market to
internationalization. These are going to be great opportunities for companies
for growth where they can deal with one specific location. One window for
service and get the answers they require, whether it be venture capital, working
capital, whether it be
travel support or marketing, to get into different areas of the province for
internationalization and export, or whether it will be looking at the mix of
capacity building that is required, or research and development or
commercialization supports. They will get all of that.
We saw
that recently, as the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue talked about, an
announcement the Premier made at Quorum, where four Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians wanted to come home. Technology being borderless, they decided
we're going to open up a company in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has now grown
to their largest operation with 90 employees, and they are growing. They're
going to grow further. They received R & D, and also a non-repayable loan
meeting job targets. These are initiatives that we've undertaken.
We've
seen under our watch, where we're working very closely with the tourism
industry; the Provincial Tourism Product Development Plan was launched. When the
last exit survey was done in 2011, there were less than 18,000 people employed
in tourism. Fast forward to 2016, 20,000 people employed in the tourism
industry; 2,600 businesses. It is quite significant; $1.13 billion in 2016, $575
million – the most non-resident spending ever in the history of this province –
553,000 non-resident visitors. This stuff just doesn't happen by accident. It
happens through collaboration. It happens through partnership. It happens
through industry and community and government and others working together.
We have
seen our film and television industry grow significantly. It was amazing to see
Mary Sexton here in the House earlier. When we talk about
Maudie and the economic impact that has had – a Nova Scotia story
that was filmed right here, that received significant accolades.
When we
look at the economic spin-off from film and television, it has already exceeded
$50 million in production, up from $40 million the year before, resulting in 640
full-time equivalents. That came through strategic investments of supporting
film by doubling the film equity program last year, and keeping it at $4 million
this year.
When we
look at the significant leverage that we work with our federal partners through
infrastructure, approximately $620 million is expected to be spent in 2018-2019,
and over $3 billion over a five-year period. This will create 4,900 person years
of employment annually.
If we
look at manufacturing; the manufacturing sector contributed $1.1 billion to
nominal GDP in 2016, representing 4 per cent of total provincial GDP. It's quite
significant.
We have
great manufacturing companies all over this province, whether it's the Dynamic
Air Shelters on the Burin Peninsula; or whether it's the Superior Glove Works in
Point Leamington; or whether it's the Resource Innovations and what they're
doing in Corner Brook; whether it's Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the export
they're doing to India with their paper, pursuing new markets and
diversification; whether it's looking at the mining that's happening in Labrador
and on the Baie Verte Peninsula and Central Newfoundland and Labrador and the
prospectivity for more mining.
It's so
significant that we have – the Minister of Natural Resources will tell you –
there are 6,000 people employed in mining here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's quite significant, with plans to grow. They just launched some funding for
prospectivity.
Then our
oil and gas sector, Advance 2030,
where there are 5,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector. There's
tremendous opportunity to double the exploration and production and increase
jobs to 7,500. That happens through partnerships with the Minister of Natural
Resources working with the industry, working with NOIA through an oil and gas
council. Then looking at all the opportunities of which we can collaborate
through the whole of government to look at supply and development and how we can
take that expertise, that servicing, so that we can export our knowledge to
other jurisdictions, whether it be in Europe, whether it be in Africa, whether
it be in South America, Guyana. We're doing significant partnerships where we
have the capabilities and the opportunities right here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Our
companies have confidence. We're working very closely. Never before I think in
the history of the province has industry, industry associations and community
had such connectivity with government, because we're listening. We're looking to
create the atmosphere and the environment, reduce regulations and barriers that
inhibits private sector growth. This is what we are doing. We already have
invested in a number of entities where we're creating industry right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Member opposite, I'm very appalled by the Leader of the Third Party in
yesterday's Question Period, when she talked about a 40 – there's over a $55
million investment of all private sector money, through a publicly traded
company, that is going to invest and set up a cannabis production facility in
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, creating 145 jobs for 20 years. There's
also going to be R & D investment that's going to happen with that.
We are
open for business. Any other production company can look at St. John's or they
can look at Labrador. They can look at the Northern Peninsula. They can look at
Central, the Burin Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula. They can look at the
Port au Port Peninsula, Stephenville Crossing, the West Coast. There is ample
opportunity. But the Member opposite said we should, as government, have
dictated to that business that they should set up elsewhere in a rural area of
the province when it is business that determines where their best opportunity
is. They determine their business plan. They determine their level of success.
The type
of approach that the Member opposite is talking about is basically a
state-directed social or communist type of approach to doing business in any
jurisdiction. How can you look at growth and economic development when you're
trying to dictate to business, when they're investing all of their dollars –
it's their own money. They're setting up shop. This is not government money that
is going in. This is not anything that is being –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
– put forward in that way. It
is very interesting. The ideology of the Member opposite and the approach of
wanting – when a company wants to set up and is willing to set up in the City of
St. John's and not want that company to set up in St. John's, Newfoundland and
Labrador.
As the
Member for Placentia West - Bellevue said: It is not one or the other, because
economic development needs to happen both in urban areas and in rural areas. I
will say that I am very much a proponent of seeing economic development in every
region of Newfoundland and Labrador.
When it
comes to my very own district, when we look at the opportunity of mining
prospectivity, when we look at our forestry resource that's there and the fibre
basket, there's opportunity there. There's opportunity for value added for our
economic institutions and we're working very closely.
That's
why we created the Regional Innovation Systems pilot projects for industry, for
tourism, for fisheries, for forestry and for aquaculture. We've done a number of
things that's really looking at how we advance the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The
Member opposite, the Leader of the Third Party, did not want to contribute to
the budget when the Finance Minister put forward that offering. When it came to
Estimates, she asked a number of questions about wanting to have briefings with
my department and we said absolutely. I said I would even make myself available
for that. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune was there and part of that
process and had asked as well, but neither of them have yet to take up that
offer to have a request on any of the industries within the Department of TCII
to have those meetings since the Estimates have taken place.
I
encourage them to reach out, if they want to have that dialogue, they want to
have those meeting and they want to look at the economic opportunities to the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to speak this afternoon to the private Member's resolution
that's been proposed here. I won't go through all of the components of it but
the gist of it, so people who may be watching at home would understand exactly
what it is that we're having a discussion and a debate around, and what we're
asking this House to vote on:
“BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge Government to create an all-party
Select Committee on Jobs to address the growing unemployment crisis in
Newfoundland and Labrador.”
Mr.
Speaker, as we do realize there are situations out there that are hindering our
ability to create more employment and it is having a major impact here. We know
part of the impact around people wanting to stay in our province is having
accessible, reliable and what they would consider decent employment. That may
mean its geographic location, it may mean the amount of money they make or it
may mean what they do as part of that employment.
So we
all have a vested interest here. The Minister for Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation had noted one important thing: We have great employers who create
great jobs, with great employees doing wonderful work. We have that here. The
challenge here, and the question we're having here is: How do we ensure
everybody, those great people who are doing great jobs in great industries,
everybody else who doesn't have that ability has an ability to have some choices
in what they want to do and not be left out?
That's
where we're getting to, and it's not a slight against any administration. It's
not a slight against an industry. It's a realization that the economy has
changed. We need to be a bit more creative on how we do it. We need to be more
supportive in what we do. Every administration has talked about diversifying the
economy.
To have
a committee on jobs, to me, is an important step forward. I take it at a bigger
level. If I was to make an amendment to this resolution, it would be that there
would be a committee on the economy. Obviously, if you stimulate the economy, if
you find ways to engage business, the private and public sector, if you find
ways to engage the not-for-profit sector, but if you find ways to engage
citizens from all sectors, then obviously you're going to stimulate the economy.
When you stimulate the economy, part of the stimulation is job creation. That
automatically comes as part and parcel of it.
While
I'm talking here, I will personally be supporting this, but I'm going to talk in
a broader sense around the economy itself. The economy is the bigger picture
here. The economy getting on the right track will, no doubt, start to address
the job issues we have here.
I go
back to – this is not new what we've talked about, the issues we're facing. Are
we at a crisis situation yet? In comparables to previous years, we're not. But
if you're unemployed, this is a crisis for you. If you're forced to leave
Newfoundland and Labrador because you can't find suitable employment or
employment at all, it's a crisis for you. So it's all in the interpretation of
it. But for the person affected by it or the community that loses a family or
individual, it's a crisis for them.
So we
have to take that in context here to realize the impact that it has on people.
An impact on one individual has an impact on a multitude of others – in
communities or in families, or in the agencies or organizations that they're
volunteers, or an impact it has on services that other people are relying on
them to spend money, so that they can provide employment.
We've
got to look at it from a bigger picture. And the bigger picture here is the
economy. How do we find ways to stimulate the economy? Well, the best way, and
we've talked about it – and the government takes credit, patting themselves on
the back and rightfully so, that's fine – in consultation, and you have
The Way Forward where you open it up
to groups to come in and tell you what the processes should be. Nobody's saying
that that wasn't a good process. We're not saying there are no merits to it.
We're not even saying that what's outlined in it isn't one of the starting
points of being able to stimulate the economy or move in the right direction.
What's
been suggested here is that the more people who sit down from a holistic point
of view, and look at the logistics of what an all-party committee from the House
of Assembly can bring – and what it can bring is different perspectives and an
understanding from all agencies. If it's the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, if it's the Employers' Council, if it's unions, if it's
not-for-profits, whoever they may be, you'd bring them a better awareness that
they would like to be engaged and sit at the table.
It's new
to us in this province. The last couple of committees that we've done have been
very effective. But it's not new in other jurisdictions and what they do. A lot
of other jurisdictions use the committee process, particularly around immediate
issues that need to be addressed, or long-term sustainable issues that need
processes and policies and an outline, an engagement, for particular sectors or
particular issues that we're going to face. So, you know, proposing this is not
out of line with what we should and could be doing, and have done, but
particularly in what other jurisdictions have done.
Again,
and I want to reiterate, I would take it to the higher level. I would be
thinking the economy. Let's just not centre it on jobs, because that might keep
some groups out from that process, but as part of the process we need to have
another discussion around where we are with it. As part of this bigger picture,
there's a difference between what we do from promoting employment, to what we do
to enhancing and making it possible. It's one thing to get out and put posters
up, you know, there should be more employers and there should be more things
going on, but then there becomes a difference between your actions and what you
do to support businesses being creative.
Sometimes it's about the tax regime, how you change that. Sometimes it's about
some of the incentives within the community itself. Sometimes it's about the
training, particularly for individuals. Some other times it's about how we
engage people here to ensure that the structures are conducive to them to be
able to move the economy forward, and as a result create employment, but it's
also giving people the ability or the supports to say let's try things we
haven't. Let's look at what other jurisdictions are doing or other areas or
let's take our natural resources and let's take them to just beyond the raw
resource and the raw mining or the raw development. Let's get secondary jobs
where we know that is a key component from a number of points of view, from a
tax revenue point of view, from an employment point of view and for what gets
contributed back into the respective communities when you do these type of
things.
There
are a number of things here that need to be looked at and there has to be a
holistic approach to what we're doing. So when you look at the economy, you must
look in a bigger picture. There has to be more dialogue. There has to be more
ways of doing it.
It's not
the first kick at the cat when we talk about engaging more people. We've talked
about it in the past, back in the '80s, the Royal Commission on Employment and
Unemployment, when we were, in my opinion, at a crisis level, when youth
unemployment was at 35 per cent, when the unemployment rate for adults was at 22
and 23 per cent.
When
people were leaving the province. When you were reliant – and it wasn't only
about jobs, it was about the quality of jobs and your reliability to be able to
sustain a quality of life. We know in the fishing industry people would fight to
get enough for unemployment. It became the process of am I EI eligible and
getting to that point. You would scramble to be able to do that.
That's
not a quality of life. I know that there are jobs that are seasonal and they're
acceptable and they're very necessary. They're the careers that people are
engaged in, but there are times where there was a challenge.
I
remember presenting to the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment and,
particularly, around youth unemployment. I remember Dr. House throwing back at
me and said: Well, how do we engage? How do we get young people to tell us how
we create employment? I said: You don't. You give them the support so they
create employment. This is how this works. This can't be a government solving
the problems for everybody. It has to be a government putting the mechanism and
the supports in play so that citizens can do it. They're much more equipped to
understand what are the services that are needed or the skill sets we have to
create employment or the products that we can develop.
He
stopped for a second and the other commissioners looked. They had a little
dialogue among themselves and then they came back and said: Well, let's make
some suggestions. What are you proposing would happen here?
We
talked about going back to the school system, about teaching more about
entrepreneurship, teaching more about hands-on skills. This was just as the
electronic age was about to happen in the '80s, about being prepared. Those
days, Newfoundland was always five or 10 years behind when it came to technology
or training and this type of thing. Maybe it was because the geography and
social media wasn't there and the communications process, but what was discussed
then was about: How do we find mechanisms to ensure our young people, who we
know are as intelligent, are as capable and are as talented as any out there,
how do we ensure that they have access to all the same supports that would
engage them to become entrepreneurs, create employment or do their part to
ensure that employment or industries are successful?
I
remember the report and the recommendations coming out. There was a whole
section on youth and what that meant for employment and how you would change the
focus in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just sticking to traditional
industries, which were very important. The fishing industry and the mining
industry. Tourism was only just a little blip on the radar at the time, but it
was being discussed at the time.
It also
talked about how young people, how creative they can become with their own
training. Maybe they have to go into areas of training where there are
opportunities to create things. That was the first time we talked about
aerospace and electronics.
The
groups that had presented at the time were young people who, in some cases, had
gone to universities in other parts of the country and had gotten some exposure
to industries that could easily work here, they felt were very transferable here
because the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the skill set and the young
people. We have the resources to do it, we just needed the mechanism; we needed
the supports as part of that process.
As we
started the discussion, you could see a bright light. You could see people get
hope again. Some programs in the late '80s and early '90s were implemented as
part of that initiative thing. Unfortunately, it didn't take off to the same
level because people can only wait so long when you're unemployed and,
particularly, if you're a young person who's come out of a post-secondary
education institution and you have a student loan in those days. We've come a
long way in our debt deduction and our student loan process and our tuition cost
and all that, to the benefit of the students and young people in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
So they
were hard times and people ended up having to leave. We still have that gap.
Then a
few years later, it hadn't gone away. It was still an issue. I remember the
Wells government of the day had a Royal Commission on Employment also. Similar
discussions, I remember going in again as a bureaucrat and sitting down and
reading a brief. I deliberately left in a date and I remember one of the
commissioners saying: No, no, no, excuse me, Mr. Brazil, that says 1987. Oh,
yes, it does because that's exactly what we presented seven years ago.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed.
The
process, the information is out there. We know that our Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who've left are unbelievably successful because these were people
who owned tech plants in the States. These were people in Ontario who were
leaders in different industries. These were engineers who had specialized
companies and who were doing things all over the world. So we knew that the
process we had put in place, our education system, was conducive to training our
people to be as good as any in the world.
The
problem we had is we didn't have the incentives or the infrastructure or the
mechanism to ensure the skill set they had could be transferable and used here.
Some of
the mechanisms that were needed there, in some cases, were about providing
supports for start-up businesses in a multitude of other areas. Certain things
that young people don't have. Some of the loans processed that were out there
were about you had to have X number of dollars equity.
Well, if
you're 22 years old, you just paid off a $20,000 student loan and you're coming
out and it's your first job, but you have a skillset, you're very talented and
you have some experience because you worked on your co-op programs, your work
terms or you worked with dad or mom or somewhere in your community, you have a
skillset, but now you can't get to the next level because you need to buy
equipment. You don't have that access and, unfortunately, in Newfoundland and
Labrador, we didn't have a lot of manufacturing companies that had faltered
where you could buy equipment at 10 cents on the dollar, like you could in
Ontario, Quebec and some of these areas.
We found
a lot of people would leave here and be very successful up there because, not
only were there some incentives in play, but the industry – and as I said, some
of the companies would falter because they had a different mindset, these young
people could pick it up. They had lots of energy. They weren't expecting big
salaries while they started. This was about creating a business that had some
longevity, that they had some security, but also creating jobs for their
counterparts; the young people they had worked with.
I had a
number of young people presenting briefs about how they had sent home for people
that went to school with them in various courses and brought them up to work for
them in their manufacturing plants and in their companies that they had going.
This
tells you about the resiliency and it tells you about the desire to be able to
make things happen here, but what we're looking at is putting a structure in
play and having a mechanism where we engage more people to talk about where we
are.
I don't
think we need to reinvent the wheel. I think we need to go back, look at some of
the things that were outlined and we tried to do. Some of it successful; don't
forget there are a number of successful business people around here in their
40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s who started as young people, who scrimped and saved and
went through all the process but made it work. In some cases, it's because
programs and processes were put in play to make them have an opportunity. It
wasn't a handout, it was a hand up.
We have
a number of those successful people here. We need to build on their successes
and how they did it, but more importantly, some of the struggles they had and
some of the barriers that were there.
The key
thing of solving issues, in a lot of cases, in my opinion, is let's get rid of
the negativity, let's get rid of the barriers and then let's add the supports
because if you're adding support on one side and there are two negativities on
the other side, then you've got a challenge there. There's only so much energy
to go around.
We have
the ability to do that through dialogue and engagement. There's an opportunity
here to have some discussions, to engage more people in the process and to see
if we can indeed change the outcomes on our unemployment rates and give people
choices around employment, and choices that if they want to leave to go for
employment somewhere else it's because they want some more adventure versus
having no opportunities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre to close debate on her resolution.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank all those who participated in the debate today. It was very
interesting to hear from my colleagues from across the province, from around the
province. I must say, I commend those who've been involved in helping look at
the issue of the need for job creation in the province.
I was
somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, by the level of derision that some folks
brought to the floor today. Really, what this is about, this is a private
Member's motion not about taking power away from government, not about giving
power to anyone else, this is about involving the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador in one of the most critical and crucial problems that is facing our
province today.
That's
what it's about. It's about saying we have to do something different, that there
is opportunity here. So it's not about negativity. It's about we have an
opportunity here and we need to do something bold. What we've been doing is not
working, and we know that.
As the
people here in the House may recall, I started off the debate by reading from
the report of the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment called
Building on our strengths, which was the report of a royal commission from 1986,
and the report actually could have been written today.
We do
have a problem with, how are we going to deal with sustainable jobs in our own
communities all over the province? Really, having an all-party select committee
again, nobody loses. We only gain. It's about engaging our whole province in the
conversation. It's not just talking about the challenges. It's about looking at
potential solutions, and what can different people bring to the table.
It
really is as well, Mr. Speaker, we know that it would require hard work. It will
require hard work from our Members here in the House. It will require hard work
from people in communities all over the province, but it's hard work that I know
people all over Newfoundland and Labrador are willing and able to do. They are
willing and able to roll up their sleeves and come to the table and talk about
how they see moving their communities into a more sustainable economic
situation.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing people are asking of us as legislators is to work
together, to drop our petty differences. Some of our differences aren't petty,
but I've heard some pretty petty things here today; the false accusations, for
instance, that I'm against aquaculture. I think aquaculture is one of the most
interesting emerging industries in the province. Let's do it right. Let's do it
right to make it's sustainable, and to make sure that it fits with our inshore
fishery as well. I'm excited about aquaculture, and I've always stood up in this
House and said that.
So those
kinds of diversions to try and ridicule this private Member's motion, or try to
ridicule me or to ridicule our party doesn't sit well with the people of the
province, nor does it bring us any further towards the solutions that we must
work on, that we must search out together, because that's what we have to do. We
have to find solutions.
We know,
whether it's downtown St. John's, whether it's Bareneed, whether it's Conception
Bay North, whether it's Lab City – where we've seen unemployment, horrible
unemployment there as well for some of our people – wherever it is, whether it's
in indigenous communities, whether it's women and young single moms, our youth
are experiencing incredible high unemployment now.
This is
not about fear mongering. It's not about being negative. It's about being
incredibly optimistic. It's about saying we can all step up and work together
and find the solutions that will be embedded in our communities. That will make
our individual communities absolutely economically sustainable.
Again, I
harken back to the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I don't
think we ever hear in this house, since the report of that Committee, any kind
of petty infighting, any kind of small-minded questioning. As a matter of fact,
I think we were all proud of the work that was done. Our mental health and
addictions system was on the verge of collapse and we knew the suffering that
was happening all across the province, and that's why we had to do it.
We know
now we have the highest rates of bankruptcy than we've had in a very long time.
We know, you go on Kijiji and how much furniture, how many campers and vans are
for sale because people are moving, and it's not because they want to. Of
course, we will have young people who will move away. A lot of us here in this
House have done that.
I've
moved away, Mr. Speaker. I lived in –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I moved
away and worked in Montreal for 10 years and I came back. That was a good
experience for me, but it's about choice.
Mr.
Speaker, what we are seeing, it's undeniable because we all hear the stories. We
see news stories about it. We see reports about it. The high rate of
unemployment, it's undeniable, and it doesn't have to be this way.
The same
way that we all worked together with respect and totally engaged people with the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. We heard from police, we
heard from corrections officers, we heard from teachers, we heard from people
with lived experience, we heard from parents with adult children with persistent
mental health issues, we heard from young people, we heard from seniors, and we
came up with a plan that seems to be working. It's a plan that we all agreed on,
and we can be so proud of that.
I
remember in that debate, Mr. Speaker, I said I don't understand how anybody in
this House, when we were proposing the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions, and knowing the crisis that was representing – I remember standing
in this House and saying I don't understand how any Member in this House could
go back to their community, knowing what's happening in their communities, and
justify why they wouldn't support government striking an all-party committee on
mental health and addictions.
I would
like to extend that to this, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how any Member in this
House could go back to their communities, knowing the effects of unemployment
and persistent unemployment in many areas which may threaten the actual
existence of some communities, I don't know how any Member in this House could
go back to their community and justify why they wouldn't support an all-party
select committee on jobs. It's about our future. It's not taking anything away
from government. It's not giving any extra power to Opposition Parties or the
independent Member; it is about working together, which is exactly what the
people of the province want us to do, and it is about engaging people in their
communities.
Again,
engaging people –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– where they live. It's about engaging people where they live and how they
envision the sustainability of their communities. That's what this is about.
Mr.
Speaker, I find it quite interesting for the Minister of Tourism and Culture to
call me a communist. I find that pathetic – so low and pathetic. However, I
would like to say, as someone who's been a small business owner and who is very
respectful of free enterprise and how important that is, that every Member in
this House today received an email from Mr. Vaughn Hammond who is the director
of provincial affairs for the Canadian Federation –
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation on a point of order. Please proceed.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to correct the record here. I said the directing of business as to where a
business would set up or whatnot is a way of which is a communistic policy. I
did not say anything about the Member being a communist.
MR. SPEAKER:
I don't see a point of order.
I'd ask the Member to please proceed.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As we
see, I just have a few minutes left here and I hope that no other Member would –
MR. SPEAKER:
May I say I've known some
good communists in my time, too.
Please
proceed.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, thank you very much, and
socialists and democrats and all of that. That's what we're talking about, Mr.
Speaker, all of us working together. It is that diversity and the diversity of
opinions and the diversity of ideological ideas which helps us gather stronger
solutions –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– much stronger solutions.
Mr.
Speaker, the role of government is not to create jobs, nor to create –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed; we have three minutes to go – four minutes.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I hope
that the government would just kind of hold off so I can use my three minutes on
this very important private Member's motion.
The role
of government is not to create jobs or make-work projects; the role of
government is to create an environment where jobs can be created. It's about
removing barriers. It's about facilitation. And that's what we're calling for
here, Mr. Speaker. I find it very interesting again, that we all received emails
from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who are supporting this
private Member's motion because they see the value in it. They see how important
this is.
Again,
we have not only the current unemployment rate that we have, and growing, but
also the issue of automation, and how automation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for
some protection here; it's getting hard to speak in the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Until we
adjourn, we are doing important work here. I'd ask for the co-operation of all
Members, please.
Please
proceed with your final remarks – final warning.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So
again, this is about gathering every single brain cell, every bit of expertise
that we have in the province. Whether it's somebody who is running a little shop
in Come By Chance, whether it's somebody at Memorial University, like Professor
Barb Neis, who is doing such incredible work looking at mobile workers in the
province, whether it's single moms or we have some incredible entrepreneurs here
in the province as well, who have built large companies, who are doing great
work in building our province and contributing to our economy, so it's about
bringing all that together.
And
that's really the role of government: to facilitate. To facilitate this kind of
dialogue, and it's about finding solutions that work. We can't afford not to do
it. At the present situation that we are facing now as a province, we have to do
something bold, and we have to create a vision – not that's created up on the
eighth floor in somebody's office, but that the people of the province want to
be involved in this, and have to be involved in this.
We have
seen the success of when we do work together in a respectful manner. We've seen
the success of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. We've
seen the success on the All-Party Committee on Northern Shrimp. We can do this.
As my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi – she showed the history of
successful select committees.
So this
is a legislative tool that is at our disposal, and I would encourage the
government Members – they have nothing to lose, only something to gain. We are
at a critical point in our history. This is a serious problem that's facing the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a legislative tool at our disposal.
Let's use that tool. Let's engage our people. Let's engage academia. Let's
engage the whole province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Please,
House Leaders, call in your Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr.
Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,
Ms. Coady, Mr. Byrne, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms.
Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Finn,
Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Hutchings,
Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 3; the nays: 29.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is defeated.
In accordance with Standing Order 9 and this being Wednesday, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.