March 14, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 57
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome all Members back to this House of Assembly.
We have
several guests here today, but, first of all, I'm going to put a little bias
into the introductions. I'd like to recognize my Deputy Speaker, the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay, he's just returned from being inducted into the Atlantic
Building Supply Dealers Association Hall of Fame.
It's a
great honour, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And he tells me he flew on an
Embraer.
Additional folks that I'd like to welcome to our gallery today, there very many
guests. First of all, Michelle Baikie, who is joining us from the Board of
Regents at Memorial University. I'm not sure if I spot her just yet, but she's
here somewhere, I hope.
We also
have several students from Mount Pearl Senior High School. They are studying
social studies, ethics and philosophy, and they are accompanied by their
teachers, Shane Antle and Teri Murphy.
A great
welcome to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome in
the public gallery and acknowledge Dr. Mari-Lynn Sinnott and Dr. Taryn Hearn of
Clinic 215 that serves the LGBTQ population, along with members of the trans
community and their allies.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
We also have a number of
visitors in the gallery who are here for a reading of a Ministerial Statement
about National Social Work Month.
Please
welcome representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social
Workers: Lisa Crockwell, Annette Johns, Cheryl Mallard and President Henry
Kielley; as well as Sheri McConnell from the Memorial University School of
Social Work; Elizabeth Day, Clerk of the Executive Council, who began her career
with the provincial government as a social worker and social workers from the
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and the Department of
Health and Community Services.
A great
welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And, finally, I would be
remiss if I didn't identify some former colleagues in my life as a minister, I'd
like to welcome all those representatives, owners and drivers associated with
our very important taxi industry.
A great
welcome to you in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would now like to rule on a
point of privilege raised by MHA Joyce on the 4th of March, 2019.
The
circumstances surrounding the reports by the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards were serious and have occupied the attention and resources of this
Legislature for some time now. I am satisfied that the Member has raised this
point of privilege in accordance with the required process.
The
point of privilege is based on a recent news story and asserts that the story
contains new information that affects his privileges as a Member of this hon.
House. On that basis, he asks that The
Joyce Report of October 19, 2018 and
The Kirby Report of October 3, 2018, be referred back to this House of
Assembly so that the House of Assembly can discuss the manner in which the
Commissioner investigated and presented these reports. The Member is not asking
for a review on merits.
The
reports of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards were tabled in this House
and were the subject of intense debate and discussion. In addition, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards briefed Members in camera and,
unprecedented in the last 50 years, appeared in person before the Committee of
the Whole House. His remarks were, in fact, limited to the process he used and
not the substance of the complaints. Members had numerous opportunities to
question the CLS on his work.
The CBC
news report from March 2, 2019 referred to by the Member states, and I quote:
“Sources within the House's Management Commission inform me Chaulk did tell some
MHAs that” – I guess I'm not permitted to use the Member's name, but it's the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands – “was unable to be interviewed ….”
With the
exception of the Clerk of the House, Members of the Management Commission are
Members of this House of Assembly. Any questions they had about comments the
Commissioner may have made in the technical briefing could have easily been
raised when questioning the Commissioner or in debate on the reports. This
particular issue was, in fact, raised by the Member himself multiple times in
the questioning of the Commissioner and in debate. The Member for Humber - Bay
of Islands had many opportunities to be heard and to raise issues in this House,
and I would refer Members to Hansard,
November 5, 2018, and the following day, November 6, 2018.
I have
examined the documents tabled by the Member and note that they provide
additional context in this matter. In a letter from the Member's solicitor to
the Commissioner on July 26, 2018, the following argument is presented on the
Member's behalf: We have discussed your request with our client, and the Member
believes that in our reply dated July 19, 2018, with attachments, he has
rebutted each of the factual allegations made by the complainant and has
demonstrated that the very serious allegations made against the Member,
including but not limited to political corruption, financial irregularities and
unethical behaviour, are unfounded and untrue.
The
letter is very clear. It goes on to say that the Member is willing to meet or to
provide a supplementary written response if the Commissioner deems that the
request was not already fully addressed. The letter further states: If, however,
as Commissioner for Legislative Standards, you feel that any aspect of the
request for opinion has not been fully addressed, or requires further
clarification or amplification, our client will agree to meet with the
investigator or to respond to written questions from the investigator within the
time frame indicated – end of quote.
On
August 1, 2018, there is then an exchange between the solicitor and the
Commissioner reiterating the above and discussing scheduling which concludes
with the Commissioner stating – in quotes: Sorry for the misunderstanding on my
part. I wasn't expecting you or your client – end of quote. This is then
acknowledged by the solicitor.
The
Member has provided no further correspondence after this exchange to indicate
that he sought an in-person meeting with the Commissioner or to submit
supplementary written information. Further, no correspondence has been tabled to
indicate that the Commissioner refused to meet with the Member or accept
additions to the Member's written submission.
When
moving this point of privilege, the Member also tabled correspondence which
occurred after the Commissioner's report had been tabled. In this, the
Commissioner responds to a query from the Member as follows –and I quote: With
respect to your second question on whether or not a respondent chooses to appear
in person, you were not required to appear, nor was it expected. The act
provides that you can make representations to the Commissioner in writing or in
person or by counsel or other representative. Your counsel provided a very
extensive submission – end of quote.
On
October 19, 2018, in preparation for the Member's consideration of the reports,
the Law Clerk sent a communication to all House Leaders and independent Members.
The memo outlined the process for dealing with the reports of the CLS and stated
as follows: A resolution is a motion like any other, and as such is amendable.
Amendments and sub-amendments may be moved. Unlike amendments to the Budget
motion, there is no limit on the number of amendments or sub-amendments which
may be moved, and they would be subject to the normal parliamentary rules for
amendments.
Two
amendments were moved to motions before the House in this case and the House
voted upon and passed both of them. No amendments were moved by either the MHA
for Humber - Bay of Islands or Mount Scio. Any Member concerned with the process
could have moved an amendment for consideration of the House at that time.
To
conclude, I do not consider the news report cited by the Member to contain any
more information than what was already before this House and its Members.
Further,
this House has received an extensive amount of information about this matter,
debated and decided upon it. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands accepted the
sanction imposed by this House in that he apologized and attended respectful
workplace training in accordance with its direction.
I,
therefore, rule that there is no prima facie point of privilege to support
referring The
Joyce Report of October 19, 2018 and
The Kirby Report of
October 3, 2018 back to this House for further consideration.
This is
my final ruling on this matter.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, point of
clarification?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry you're not able –
you have a point of order?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
In your statement that you
just made that the Members of the Management Commission had an opportunity to
speak in the House, you just stated that during the debate they had an
opportunity. When I wrote you, you informed me, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't
speak because it was confidential.
So, are
you saying now that the Members that were in the Management Commission, which
you just stated, had an opportunity to speak, can they speak openly now?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sir, I don't see this as a
point of order, per se.
As I
said, my ruling is final and –
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible.) I am asking for
clarification of what you just stated. You stated in the report that –
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, I say my ruling
is final.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm asking for clarification
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
You'll have to take it up
outside of these proceedings.
Thank
you.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
I would ask to hear from the following Members for Ferryland, Humber - Bay of
Islands, Bonavista and Mount Pearl - Southlands.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Joshua Power, who was chosen as a Youth Service Leader by 4-H
Canada.
Last
year, 4-H Canada launched Hands to Larger Service program which is funded
through the Canada Service Corps by the Government of Canada. Its goal is to
select and train Youth Service Leaders aged 18-25 to co-create the
community-focused service programs across Canada.
Last
year, Joshua participated and was paired with the Hanna District 4-H club in
Youngstown, Alberta, where they planned and completed a community park
beautification project. This year, he will be working with two clubs in Ontario,
the Wellington County 4-H in Guelph, and the Rocklyn 4-H club in Rocklyn.
Growing
up, he was a member of the I. Sullivan Memorial 4-H Club in Calvert for 15
years. He has represented the province at many national 4-H events. He was
provincial representative on the 4-H Youth Advisory Committee, and completed his
two-year term in February.
Joshua
exemplifies the well-rounded, innovative and leadership-driven young
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have in the province. I want to recognize
Joshua and so many other youth in our province who are making significant
contributions.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all my colleagues here in the House of Assembly to join me in
congratulating Joshua Power on his leadership and commitment to his community
involvement. We wish him well in all future endeavours.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I rise today to recognize Mr.
Robert Barrett of Gillams who was recently named the new Illustrious Potentate
of the Mazol Shriners of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A native
of Bishop's Cove, Conception Bay, Robert has been a member of the Shriners'
organization for over 26 years. He joined the Masonic Order of Freemasons in
Halifax in 1985 as served as Master with the Mother Lodge of Duke of Kent #12.
He is a member of Lodge Corner Brook #11, and Milley Chapter #2, Royal Arch
Masons. Robert is also a member of the Crossroads Preceptory #80 Knights Templar
where he served as eminent Knight.
This
summer, Robert will preside over events being held in Corner Brook as the Long
Range Shrine Club will host the Northeast Shrine Association, which includes
members from Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States.
As we
know, Shriners are committed to helping children with serious medical issues
such as orthopedic conditions, serious burns and spinal cord injuries. To quote
a recent statement Robert made in the media: “It's helping children that remains
the most important aspect of all they do.”
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join with me in congratulating Robert on his
appointment and wish him well over the coming months as he serves this wonderful
organization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, it's a distinct
honour to stand here today and recognize Ross Abbott of Bonavista. Ross is no
stranger to the Bonavista region, being known for his countless hours of
volunteerism and community service.
It is
safe to say that Ross is a fixture with Memorial United Church where he is the
organist, active participant in all activities, and puts together one of the
most impressive yard sales you'll ever see at Bailey's Cove church hall.
However,
since 2009, Ross has become equally known for his documentation of history in
Bonavista and surrounding communities, as well as the province. His historical
curation doesn't happen at a local museum, it happens through social media on
Facebook. This all started with one photo and, 10 years later, Ross has a
digital archive of over 49,000 photos spanning generations.
This
archive ranges from school pictures, boats, buildings, community events, Sea
Cadets, war veterans, postcards and many others. Families have given Ross their
photo albums and it's certainly interesting to see how people changed through
the years.
Please
join me in recognizing Ross's commitment to his community and preserving our
history.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the accomplishments of
nine individuals who have given their time and talent to the sport of hockey in
the City of Mount Pearl.
Four of
these individuals, Harry Bartlett, Gerry Evans, Bonnie Evans and Mimmie Styles
have been inducted into the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Hall of Fame in the
category of Builder; three others, David Bailey, Terry Ryan Jr. and Roy Smith in
the Player category; as well as two others, Doug Brett and Randy White, in the
Officials category.
Hockey,
like many other sports, provides tremendous benefits to our youth, not only from
a health and wellness perspective, but also in providing life-long lessons such
as the value of hard work and commitment and in working as part of a team.
Through
the tireless efforts and unwavering commitment of these Hall of Fame inductees,
many young people in my community have benefited from both a physical and social
point of view and have gone on to be very healthy, well-rounded and productive
citizens.
I would
ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in commending these individuals
for their contribution to this great sport and in congratulating them on being
inducted into the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Hall of Fame.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, while the rising
cost of insurance premiums for the taxi industry has been a problem for a long
time, our government is the first administration to deal directly with the
matter by trying to find solutions.
In 2017,
our government initiated a review of the auto insurance system by the Public
Utilities Board, which placed a specific focus on the taxi industry, including a
closed-claims study specific to taxi operators.
The
findings of the PUB report demonstrate that the insurance pressures facing the
taxi industry have been ongoing for more than 20 years. Mr. Speaker, one such
pressure is reliance on Facility Association – an unincorporated non-profit
organization of all automobile insurers. The organization is an insurer of last
resort. However, Facility Association currently –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
– insures over 95 per cent of
the taxi industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
After
making no rate applications between 1993 and 2012, Facility Association has
filed for rate increases almost yearly since then. The total cumulative rate
increases over the period 2012 to 2018 is approximately 244 per cent.
Along
with the insurance review, we also met with representatives of the taxi industry
on a number of occasions and together implemented a number of measures to help
strengthen the industry.
Effective July 1, 2018, there were policy amendments focusing on skilled
drivers, experience in driving in provincial road conditions, driving history,
passenger safety and safer vehicles. A zero-tolerance policy for drugs or drugs
and alcohol when operating a taxi came into effect on December 18, 2018.
In
Budget 2018, government approved a
one-third reduction in the tax on auto insurance over four years. This will
particularly benefit those paying the highest rates such as taxi operators.
Mr.
Speaker, our government remains committed to working with stakeholders in
bringing forward changes to legislation during this sitting of the House that
will benefit consumers of insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador, including taxi
operators.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for a copy of her statement.
It's
been six weeks since the minister received the PUB report on the Review of
Automobile Insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are glad the minister has
had an opportunity to review the report but when will we get the benefit of her
deliberations?
From the
minister's statement, one would think everything is good with taxi insurance. If
so, why are taxi operators here today?
The PUB
has said it is clear that the taxi industry is in crisis. The minister notes a
cumulative 244 per cent increase from 2012 but nothing else in the minister's
statement indicates whether she agrees with the PUB that there's a taxi industry
crisis.
The 15
per cent insurance tax is a burden this government imposed, taking one-third off
is not enough. The government should join the PC Opposition in committing to
remove the tax completely and immediately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I just
do remind all visitors, we are really happy to see you here, but you're not to
express any reaction to what's going on in the proceedings.
Thank
you very much.
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 advanced copy of her statement. As the PUB said in its
report, and which the minister didn't mention: Government and the taxi
operator's first steps to strengthen the taxi industry will lead to lower costs
in the long term, but it is unlikely that these actions will result in immediate
measurable reductions in the loss to taxi operators in the present.
The
measures the minister is talking about today reflect that prediction. Clearly,
much more is going to have to be done to support taxi operators.
I'm glad
to hear the minister say that government remains committed to working on this
problem, but are we going to see substantive and meaningful changes in
legislation which will really make a difference to the taxi operators?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
rise to pay tribute to our province's 1,500 social workers during National
Social Work Month.
This
year, the Canadian Association of Social Workers have chosen the theme “Real
People. Real Impact.”
This
theme reminds us that social workers, who are dedicated to enhancing the health
and well-being of individuals, families and communities, are also our
neighbours, our friends and family members, and are committed to working with
people and communities to make the world a better place.
“Real
People. Real Impact.” also refers to the individuals that social workers
interact with on a daily basis, people who are diverse, complex and accomplished
through their lived experience. It helps us remember that they are more than
clients; they are valued members of our society.
Mr.
Speaker, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, social workers can be found in a
variety of settings, including hospitals, community centres, government
departments, universities and private practice. They work in a variety of
practice areas such as adult and youth corrections, child welfare, addictions
and mental health. Social workers may also be engaged in community development,
policy development, education and many other paths.
In my
own department, I have witnessed the commitment and dedication of social workers
on a daily basis, and I am so very grateful for, and appreciative of, the
valuable work that they do. I also extend my appreciation to the many community
partners who work alongside us in the field of social work, some of whom are
here with us today.
Mr.
Speaker, I encourage all social workers to participate in the many activities
taking place during Social Work Month, and I ask all hon. Members to join me in
recognizing our many social workers for their ongoing service in society.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister opposite for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, all
Members on this side of this House, of course, join the minister in celebrating
Social Work Month and their theme of “Real People. Real Impact.”
Mr.
Speaker, social workers touch virtually every facet of our lives from community
practice to clinical settings. These trained professionals deal with some of the
most complex individuals in our society on issues ranging from mental health and
addiction challenges to child protection and corrections.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister noted, social workers are also our friends, neighbours
and members of our community. Collectively, they are working hard to make our
communities across the province a better place. However, Mr. Speaker, I also
note the challenges of social workers in having the necessary supports,
supervision and reasonable caseloads in going about their careers. Government
must continue to work collaboratively to address these concerns in our society
as our society becomes more complex and challenging.
Mr.
Speaker, I have worked with a number of social workers in the past and I want to
personally applaud the 1,500 social workers in our province during National
Social Work Month.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Thank you to all the social workers around the province who work
for the people of our province, often under great pressure of huge caseloads and
limited resources, but with passion and compassion.
Social
workers not only work within existing systems but they are also champions of
challenging those systems to change and to adapt to the real life needs of our
people.
Thank
you to all the social workers who dare to resist, insist and persist for social
justice and equality for all people.
“Real
People. Real Impact.”
Bravo,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living, a
non-profit organization that works with and on behalf of individuals with an
intellectual disability and their families, is inviting nominations for the 2019
Inclusive Education Award.
Each
year, the award is presented to a K-12 school in Newfoundland and Labrador for
their outstanding efforts to develop and design their classrooms, their programs
and activities so that all students can participate in all aspects of school
life.
Mr.
Speaker, this government supports safe, caring and inclusive environments
enabling all students to reach their full potential. As part of our Education
Action Plan, the department is developing a new policy on responsive teaching
and learning for all students, based on the philosophy of inclusion and meeting
the needs of all students. We are working closely with teachers in Phase I
schools to gather their feedback to ensure the new policy will meet the needs of
students.
While
the implementation of inclusive educational practices has improved considerably,
it is important to continually strive to break down barriers and identify
opportunities to implement proven approaches to teaching and learning for all
students.
I
encourage students and teachers to celebrate inclusive education and apply for
the Inclusive Education Award. The deadline for submission is April 12.
Information about the award and the new guidelines are available on Newfoundland
and Labrador Association for Community Living website.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we, on this
side, are also pleased that the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for
Community Living is now welcoming nominations for the 2019 Inclusive Education
Award.
This
association promotes a vision of communities where everyone belongs, have a
rightful place and where families support a person's right to full citizenship
with society. The association's work on behalf of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families has been nothing short of outstanding.
I join
with the minister to encourage the public to nominate individuals in the
education community for such an important award with such a wonderful group.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
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. I congratulate the Newfoundland and
Labrador Association for Community Living on their 63 years of advocacy for
equality and inclusion. I commend the applicants who will come forward for this
award, for their efforts to break down barriers in their schools.
I hope
government will share concretely their commitment to inclusive education by
providing the necessary resources to properly implement the new policy on
responsive teaching and learning.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Public
Utilities Board completed its review of auto insurance rates on January 29 after
six weeks of consideration.
Can the
minister provide an update on specific actions being considered?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes,
there's been quite a bit of work that's been going on within government since
the release of the report by the PUB. It's not lost on me or those people
watching today that the irony in all of this is the PUB does some great work.
But we also know that it was the former PC Party that actually kicked the PUB
out of some very thorough and important discussions just a few years ago prior
to the sanction of Muskrat Falls.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to the taxi industry, we want to work closely with them.
The minister has already made comment about some 244 per cent increase that is
driven primarily by third-party liabilities, and I look forward to the next
question from the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, we, in this province, have the highest auto insurance rates in
Atlantic Canada, we are told.
When
will the minister, or the Premier for that matter, inform the public about
potential future changes regarding auto insurance?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is
no question, and as I just mentioned as I was finishing up the last answers,
that since 2012 the taxi industry has seen some 244 per cent increase, and that
rate is unsustainable to the industry. It's been clearly outlined by meetings
that the minister has had.
And by
the way, Mr. Speaker, I understand the industry has got a request for a meeting
with me, certainly one I'd be more than willing to take as we can fit that into
the schedule. I think it's the appropriate thing to do –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
– to listen to the concerns
of the industry, just like we've been meeting with the legal industry – the
lawyers, and I'm sure the Member opposite would be very familiar how those
discussions would go.
We're
already meeting with the insurers, as well, to come to a solution. It's been
mentioned already, this is a 20-year problem that's been in the making. We want
to work with industry; we want to work with people in this province to find a
solution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, of course it's not only taxi drivers and people in that industry
who are greatly vexed by the cost of insurance. It affects families with young
drivers, seniors and others.
Can the
Premier or the minister give some indication as to what the plan is to help
those citizens?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
think the Leader of the PC Party would know, going back to 2015, this province
faced some unprecedented challenges, and I think the Leader of the PC Party
knows why we faced those difficult challenges. We were facing a $2.7-billion
deficit. I am sure he knows the history of what we've had to deal with.
The
taxation on insurance right now is just over $60 million. If you want to remove
that tax, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the PC Party, where
would you replace that money? We are taking it back; we are doing it stable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
We are doing it in a
sustainable fashion. Because in the backdrop of all this, we've taken most of
the tax right now off gasoline that was there. We are trying to create a
foundation for this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I remind
all Members the Speaker is not in a good mood today, so I will not tolerate
heckling or interruptions.
Please
proceed.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
As the hon. Premier has
recognized the cost of insurance is a serious concern for taxi operators and
others, and he mentioned the figure, which was adverted to in the Ministerial
Statement, of a 244 per cent increase in recent years, we've been told by taxi
operators that it can cost up to $12,000 per year to insure.
What
measures are being considered by the minister or the Premier to address
specifically this problem?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
But just
acknowledging the fact that when you look at the magnitude of the problem here,
you'd understand that the only solution that the Leader of the PC Party just
mentioned is only a small part of this. It's an important part of it, but some
of this is within the controls of government, Mr. Speaker. Some of it we have to
work with the industry to find solutions to all of this.
As I
said, this problem goes back to 20 years. I look forward to meeting with the
group, Mr. Speaker, because I'm sure that there will be some solutions that will
come with this.
But I
would say, and remind the Leader of the PC Party right now when he just stands
up there and says I'm going to reduce $60 million here, I'm going to take
another $150 million somewhere else, I'm going to balance the books of this
province – which is what he said, he would put a ceiling on debt, that he would
balance the books next year. Before you sit in your chair, Sir, I would say make
no promises (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Sorry,
your time has expired.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
I counsel a little patience
to the hon. the Premier. All will be revealed in good time.
Can the
Premier give the public some clarification as to, if not an exact time frame, an
approximate time frame, within which this whole complex of issues around the
cost of auto insurance will be addressed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
already laid out some of the plans about reducing the tax on insurance. Some of
that work has already been done. Of course, there will be a budget and lot of
those decisions feed into budget 2019, Mr. Speaker. I am guessing that if things
– Mr. Speaker, there are many things, no matter what we put, would be good and
good for the people in this province.
We
mentioned earlier about some of the most vulnerable that we have in our society.
We put $121 million to support low-income people and seniors in our province,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
The Opposition, Mr. Speaker,
did not vote for that. They actually voted against that, Mr. Speaker, so that
gives you an idea.
We are
in an election year, Mr. Speaker, I understand that and it's easy for the Leader
of the Opposition to stand there without any accountability and be
grandstanding.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
This is a little bit
technical so either the minister or the Premier, if he wants to come to the
plate on it.
The only
auto insurance coverage – 95 per cent anyway – available to taxi operators is
through Facility Association, which is referred to as the insurer of last
resort. Taxi operators are frustrated by lack of alternatives.
Can
either the minister or the Premier explain why operators are limited to being
insured through Facility?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'm sure the Leader of the PC Party will be very familiar with the insurance
system in Newfoundland and Labrador. He had mentioned already that the rates in
Newfoundland and Labrador will be the highest in Atlantic Canada, and these
statistics that he's mentioning here, Mr. Speaker, are well known to everyone
that's associated with this.
I think
the Leader of the PC Party is also aware of the role that Facility plays in
providing insurance within the system that we have within our province. That is
true for all those other provinces within Atlantic Canada as well.
What
we're seeing here is we saw insurance increase freezes going back into the '90s,
which led into and bleed into some of the problems that we're trying to deal
with here today.
Mr.
Speaker, this is the first government to look for a solution. We've got the PUB
involved, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to working with industry to work and
find a solution to stabilize and, hopefully, lower insurance rates in this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you to the Premier.
Taxi
operators are also upset with what they believe is a lack of recognition being
given to good driving records. The Consumer Advocate recently stated taxi
drivers whose records are without blemish are bearing a burden under the current
system.
What
will the minister or the Premier and his government do to correct this
perception of injustice?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
why it's important to look at the ideas and the solutions that will come from
the industry. I agree, that when you have a driver that works within the taxi
industry, that has a good driving record, they should not be bear the
consequence of those that are responsible for driving those claims up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I understand
that. That goes without saying. That is the reason why this government got the
PUB involved. This government is engaging with the industry, Mr. Speaker, and
it's the reason why I am more than willing to sit down with the industry to look
for the solutions.
If
there's anything that I have learned in the last 3½ years, if you want to make a
difference in this province, set it up for a good future, is work with
industries of all sorts within this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Hear, hear indeed on that
point, Mr. Speaker, about the injustice of not taking into account unblemished
records.
The PUB
suggested in its report that government may wish to immediately begin
consultations with stakeholders to identify solutions to the current crisis in
the taxi industry.
Is that
something the minister is considering or has already initiated?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, my officials in
my department have met with the insurance industry. We've met with the legal
industry. We've met with taxi operators. We've met with a number of interested
individuals in this piece of legislation.
The
Member opposite knows the procedure for bringing legislation into this House of
Assembly. He knows we are working on this legislation. He knows we are going to
bring it to Committee and he knows that I have committed publicly to bringing
this into the House of Assembly this sitting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The government's 15 per cent
tax on insurance premiums has worsened the situation.
Will the
minister join the Official Opposition and commit to completely removing the tax
on insurance, immediately?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
love to eliminate the tax, Mr. Speaker. The reality is the Leader of the PC
Party has committed to reducing government spending by what government's
revenues are. By reducing the tax, it further reduces government's revenues to
almost $700 million. That's almost the entire budget of the Department of
Education, I say, Mr. Speaker.
What is
the Leader of the PC Party going to cut? How many people is he going to lay off
to fulfil that election promise?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
government made the cost of driving more expensive with the introduction of the
4.42 cent per litre carbon tax on gasoline.
Will the
minister admit that this decision to swap this gas tax into a carbon tax was
about revenue generation and not about emission reduction?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
can say quite comfortably that if we had to go with the backstop that was going
to be imposed on us by the federal government, we would've paid a lot more than
we are paying today, I can guarantee you that.
The fact
that we've been able to negotiate, with your help as well, Mr. Speaker, a
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador carbon plan, we have saved this province and
the taxpayers of this province a considerable amount of money.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If they
would have gone with our approach, they'd be paying nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Consultations on climate
change action policy clearly showed that if a carbon tax was collected, people
wanted those carbon tax revenues to be used to reduce other taxes, or support
climate change initiatives, rather than for general revenues, is in the What We
Heard document. Yet, your government has decided to put the money in general
revenue anyway.
Can the
minister explain how putting carbon tax money in general revenue combats climate
change?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, he hasn't read our climate change plan. He has not read it because
what he's saying today, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not true. The monies that
we're collecting through our carbon plan will be used to address the 33 actions
in our climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
That's
where the money is going, Mr. Speaker. We're committed to that and we're
committed to the environment.
Had we
gone – and I'll say it again – had we gone with the federal backstop program and
plan that was going to be imposed on us, we would be paying a lot more.
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.
The
minister maybe should consult with the Minister of Finance who stood in this
House and told us that revenue would be going in general revenue. Maybe he needs
to consult with his Minister of Finance because that's what we're being told.
Isn't
the carbon tax really just a tax grab, Minister, to increase general revenue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
I guess I should have
answered that question the last time because that's the exact answer I gave. Mr.
Speaker, he needs to read the climate change plan.
In the
climate change plan there are 33 actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
money that's going to be accumulated through the carbon plan will be used to do
just that.
Yes, it
may go into general revenue, absolutely, but it has to go into the general
revenue. There's nowhere else for it to go. The fact that it's going into
general revenue, Mr. Speaker, doesn't mean –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
– it's going to be used for
general purposes. It's going to be used –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
– Mr. Speaker, to address the
33 actions in our climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's
what it's going to be used for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
he answered the question. We all need to read up on stuff and I think the
minister really does need to crack down and start reading his briefing notes,
but we'll wait for that.
Mr.
Speaker, last week, to the surprise of many, the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Environment announced more public consultation of banning single-use plastic
bags and said he leads by consultations and makes no apologies for it.
Did the
minister consult with his counterparts in other Atlantic provinces on what was
their input?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
guess the cheap shots are continuing again today. If you want to talk about
reading briefing notes, well maybe he should start reading the plan.
Mr.
Speaker, yes, I make no apologies, and I made them, no apologies for holding
consultations, none whatsoever. That's exactly what we were asked to do in
deciding whether to implement a ban on plastic bags or not. We're doing exactly
what was asked of us and I make no apologies for it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, last week, the minister also stated that Prince Edward Island had
brought in a ban and learned from their implementation that they did it too
quickly. The feedback they're getting is that they did not do enough
consultation. What the minister said has now been contradicted by the PEI
minister of Environment.
Minister, how do you explain this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, I have no
intentions of getting into an argument with the Environment minister in PEI.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order.
MR. LETTO:
They made their decisions to
bring in a plan without consultations, Mr. Speaker. And just to set the record
straight, when the bill was entered into the House, it came in with no
consultations and it ended up making amendments in third reading – amendments in
third reading.
Mr.
Speaker, when this bill comes to the House, when and if this bill comes to the
House, there'll be no need for amendments.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, PEI's minister of Environment is not only encouraging the minister of
our province to do the right thing, ban single-use plastic bags, municipalities
in Newfoundland and Labrador have been calling for the ban for years. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business no longer oppose the ban.
So,
Minister, why the delay?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
finish off on that last point, one thing that did happen in PEI was they had to
delay it six months because they didn't do the consultations, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
And it was because of
businesses that had no input. It was because of the fees that were being charged
to consumers to address the issue.
Mr.
Speaker, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the municipalities of this
province have the authority today to implement a ban if they so wish.
We are
looking at implementing a province-wide ban, and we'll do just that, but we
won't do it without making sure that we have the input from all our citizens,
all our businesses, whether it's the CFIB or the Retail Council of Canada. We
will do it through consultations.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So what
exactly is the minister looking for in this new round of consultations? Is he
looking for a reason not to proceed with this ban? Is that the real reason we're
doing more consultations, Minister? Are you looking for some backstop for this
to say no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
This government has never
said no to a ban.
Mr.
Speaker, what we are talking about here is three weeks of consultations – three
weeks, Mr. Speaker. It's not three years, three months or decades; it's three
weeks. We've had considerable feedback on our survey. We've had over – I think
it's almost 1,800 responses through the survey right now. We are, as we go,
doing some work on those surveys.
The
feedback that's coming back to us will be quite valuable when we go to
implement, if and when we do, implement this ban and develop the legislation
that goes with it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Justice is reported as saying he doesn't care about staff concerns
if the Marine Atlantic offices move to Port aux Basques.
I ask
the Premier: Where would the provincial government prefer to see this office?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Very
happy to stand up and talk about Marine Atlantic. It's interesting because the
Member opposite actually put out a press release insulting every person in Port
aux Basques the other day, calling it a struggling community.
When I
did the interview, what I said is that the decision should be made by looking at
what is the best financial move to ensure that Marine Atlantic has the lowest
rates possible to ensure that people and goods are coming back and forth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister – he won't admit to, he insulted ever so many staff people who work at
Marine Atlantic. I won't go down that road but everyone knows what he said when
he was asked a question about those staff.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Proceed.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you.
The
heckling is allowed on one side, I guess, is it? Yeah.
Anyway,
Premier, has the provincial government discussed the location of the Marine
Atlantic office with the board chair?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Do you
know what? Any time I can stand in this House and talk about the value of Marine
Atlantic to the people of this province is a good day, and what I can say is
that most of the Members on this side – I look at the minister, I look at the
Premier – we have had conversations with our federal counterparts, with the
board of Marine Atlantic, with the staff of Marine Atlantic.
What I
would say is, it's interesting, at no point has any Member on the other side had
a meeting with Marine Atlantic any time in the last five years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
are you aware of a consultant report commissioned by the Marine Atlantic board
examining a potential move of the headquarters? Have you seen the report and
what are the recommendations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding from being interviewed on this is that there is a report being
done to determine what's the best option for the headquarters. The goal is to
ensure that Marine Atlantic rates are reduced.
What I
find interesting is that the rates went up while Mr. Harper was the prime
minister, and the Leader of the PCs actually wanted to run for that party, so
let's talk about that irony.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
government needs to realize these rates have been on the increase for the last
three-plus years, since they've been in government, and they've said nothing –
zero.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Members over there made a
career on bashing Marine Atlantic and all of a sudden for the last 3½ years they
don't say anything. So, I'll leave –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, who is that? Yeah,
that's right.
Most of
our food in the province arrives on tractor-trailer and it has been reported
that commercial rates for Marine Atlantic are going up. Compounding the problem
of getting fresh food to our province is the Liberal's carbon tax.
I ask
the minister: What is your government doing to prevent the cost of living to
increase even further?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm happy to stand up and talk about Marine Atlantic because living in Port aux
Basques, one of the two hubs of Marine Atlantic in this province, I'm glad to
talk about it and realize its importance, but, again, it's interesting, the cost
recovery for Marine Atlantic is 65 per cent. It went up while they were in
government and didn't have any meetings with the feds. It went up while Mr.
Harper was the prime minister and there are people on that side that wanted to
be on his team.
So,
let's talk about that, and, again, I say to the Member opposite, perhaps what
you should do is actually meet with Marine Atlantic at some point –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
– because you've never done
so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Let's just turn the
temperature down just a few degrees here, please.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, today in
The Telegram there was a heart-wrenching story of a mother who's
desperately waiting for a NLHC transfer to a unit with one floor since last
year. As reported by The Telegram,
this lady has a daughter with autism, developmental disabilities and this young
girl also experiences seizures, which makes climbing stairs in the current unit
dangerous.
Mr.
Speaker, is the minister aware of this case? If so, when did the minister become
aware?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development for a quick response, please.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member knows that I can't stand on the floor of this House and speak to an
individual circumstance. What I can tell this hon. House is we have a group over
in Housing that deals with some very difficult cases.
When
somebody comes and makes application to Housing or when they request a transfer,
there is a process, Mr. Speaker, in place. I'll even actually say this:
Sometimes a unit is offered to somebody and that may not be suitable and then it
has to start again.
During
the application process, Mr. Speaker, the individual applying gets to indicate
whether it's mobility issues, accessibility, whatever it is. I'll use St. John's
for an example. They get to check boxes and say whether their preference is to
live on the east end, the west end or central, and that gives the individuals
more options for units.
We
continue to work, Mr. Speaker, to place people (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Your
time has expired.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and
Labrador is the only province left in Canada making it mandatory for trans
people to have their assessments for gender-affirming surgery done at CAMH in
Toronto. Even Ontario does not require their trans people to go to CAMH for
assessment. There is no longer any medical reason for assessments to be done out
of province.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services – he's been promising to make
changes for a while now. I ask him why is he dragging his feet on this.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We
inherited some legislation which is really quite old in this regard. I have met
with advocates, some of whom are actually in the gallery today. I have also met
with Gemma Hickey and they were very supportive of our approach.
We are
crafting changes to the regulations to remove requirements for out-of-province
assessment. We are also changing our approach to insured services for what
surgery will be available in the province. It's a work in progress and I'm sorry
if the Member opposite feels we've not moved fast enough, but we are on the
right track, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, he's been
dealing with this for 3½ years and it's affecting people's lives.
Requiring our trans people to go to CAMH creates unnecessary wait times, extra
stress and extra cost to individuals and the province. Several health care
providers here are willing to do the assessments and are qualified as per
criteria of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which is
the world standard for this work. The minister has known this for years and
those advocates and those health care providers are asking for it.
I ask
the minister: Will he commit to making all necessary changes to the act so trans
people can have assessments done in-province before this House closes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
support that move. That's been where we have been going. I would take some issue
with the timeline that the Member opposite references, but the facts of the case
are we have already opened up a wide arrange of transgender surgeries for those
people who are in need of it. The assessment process is the piece we are working
on and that, unfortunately, was enshrined in very outdated legislation which we
are in the process of changing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister again to clarify his answer.
Is he
committing and promising to have that act changed before this House closes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm quite happy
to move as expeditiously as the speed of government will allow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Trans
people and their allies have been waiting for this for years and the minister
knows this. It's not a new issue.
Mr.
Speaker, the new Correctional Services Act
was passed in 2011 based on the 2008 Decades of Darkness report, but the previous government never
proclaimed it.
This
current government has already had 3½ years to enact it, but haven't also. Only
now we are hearing there will be amendments to that act.
I ask
the minister: Will the new Correctional
Services Act actually come into force this spring or will his government
continue their decade of foot-dragging?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand up and speak to this very important topic. The
Correctional Services Act was debated in this House in the
spring of 2011, before many of the Members in this House were actually even
here. But the fact is that the Opposition did not do any regulations for the
remaining four years after that. That piece of legislation had a five-year
statutory review.
When we took office beginning in 2016, we were reviewing
the legislation anyway. What we have done since that time with disciplinary
segregation, new policies, administrative segregation. Just today, dealing with
these issues, we launched a bail supervision program and a program for
electronic monitoring, something that was cut in 2013.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre for a quick question, please.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The act still remains unchanged and not enacted.
I ask the minister then: When will he be releasing a female
offender strategy that is called for with gender and trauma-informed
interventions, programs and services?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety for a quick response, please.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can say is that when it comes to inmates in this
province, male and female, we're taking every step we can to ensure that the
general way of thinking, when we talk about incarceration, when we talk about
punishment – we're moving away from that and we want to talk more about
rehabilitation. We want to talk about the fact that we have significant
pressures in the incarceration system, in the corrections system when we have
facilities that were built before Canada.
What we are doing is working with advocates, community
members and the staff to make sure that our places of incarceration is better
and we'll continue to do that work.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
time for Oral Questions is over.
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr.
Speaker, I'm standing on a point of order. I'm definitely not challenging your
ruling, but I'm going to ask for clarification because
statements were made in the
House and you have to rise.
The
statement you made in the House was that the Members of the Management
Commission could have spoken during the debate. That was the statement that you
made in the ruling. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a letter that you wrote me
–
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry Sir, but I don't
see this as a point of order. My ruling was very clear, very thorough. It's
available in Hansard. I can also have
it emailed to you to review. I would propose that would be a venue to deal with
it. I don't see further debate on the ruling.
MR. JOYCE:
It's not debate; it's
clarification. I am looking for clarification from you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, my ruling was
very thorough. I would ask you to take your chair.
Thank
you.
MR. JOYCE:
Can I just read what you
wrote me –?
MR. SPEAKER:
I would ask you to take your
chair, Sir.
Thank
you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a
result of Question Period yesterday, I am tabling the Terms of Reference for the
Review of Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy that's being carried out by
Ms. Ann Marie Hann.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, in accordance
with the requirements of section 10 of the Architects Act, I am pleased to table
the ninth annual report of the Architects Licensing Board of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, Bill 58.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57.
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 St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province to still require an assessment
and referral from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, Gender
Identity Clinic in Toronto; the wait time for an assessment at CAMH is
approximately two or more years; in recent years, other provinces have improved
their in-province assessment and referral processes, in addition to increasing
coverage and funding for gender-affirming surgeries; without adequate MCP
coverage, these surgeries can cost thousands of dollars; the Department of
Health and Community Services is already engaged in investigating an in-province
assessment and referral process; long wait times for gender affirmation
surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria and worsened mental
health; among transgendered youth aged 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2 per cent
considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least one suicide attempt in the
last year, according to a 2014 Trans Youth Health Survey.
THEREFORE, we the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop an in-province assessment
process for gender-affirming surgeries that will eliminate the need for an
assessment by CAMH as a sole referral option; increase funding and coverage for
gender-affirming surgeries through MCP; expand the types of surgeries covered to
better reflect national standards.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a new petition. This is a petition signed by people all over
the province.
Since
they did this petition, the wait times at CAMH have been reduced. That's because
nobody else is using CAMH across the country for an assessment.
Now, the
minister has told us that they're on it, but really it's taken so long. He's had
this portfolio now for 3½ years. The previous government, I wrote them letters
with names of professionals, of doctors who are able to and willing to do the
assessment process here in the province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me, Sir.
MS. ROGERS:
Nowhere else in Canada, even
Ontario is not required that CAMH be the place where assessments are done for
trans folks.
It's
time to stop this. The extra burden on the individuals that are concerned, the
extra cost; even though some of their transportation is covered, they're still
out of pocket a considerable amount of money, particularly when you don't have
money, even a few hundred dollars is next to impossible, and particularly if you
have to miss work. If you're in a low-paying job and you don't have holidays,
it's very difficult. It's extra cost to the province.
We have
the doctors, and the thing is, is that the advocates and the doctors concerned
have been asking for this. It's time, Mr. Speaker. It's beyond time.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Glad to
rise to elaborate on some of the issues that were raised by the petition and in
Question Period.
We have
inherited some antique legislation. We are working with clinicians who are
interested in providing those services for assessment, locally, and we have yet
to finalize a clinical protocol.
I would,
however, point out for everyone that we have already, through MCP, increased the
number of gender reassignment surgery types that are now available and broadened
that. Some of these patients have to go out of the province because the skills
do not exist and nor will ever exist in this province.
We
cover, under our universal program, for the same as we would for anybody else
with a surgical issue. For income support clients who are financially challenged
we will cover the entire cost, Mr. Speaker. They have to go to Montreal.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I present this following petition on behalf of the residents in my
district and, in particular, certain areas like the Foxtrap Access area.
Mr.
Speaker, Foxtrap Access Road in CBS is a vital link to the TCH and Peacekeepers
Way as well as being a heavily populated area. This road is in need of immediate
repairs; it needs asphalt resurfacing as well as shoulder repairs. This road is
listed for resurfacing for 2023 in the five-year roads program, but is not soon
enough and its needs immediate attention.
THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We the undersigned
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to provide immediate repairs to the Foxtrap Access Road.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a lot of those petitions. They're coming in daily, actually,
from the residents in that area. I was aware that the road needed upgrades but
it's increasingly getting worse pretty well every year, and this last while it's
really deteriorating. I acknowledge some repairs that has been done in recent
times, recent years, by the government and I appreciate that.
This
road is a vital link. CBS is the second largest municipality. Route 60 is the
fifth busiest road in the province. Peacekeepers is the second, so you can only
imagine the traffic volume. By traffic volume it means lots of potholes, lots of
complaints and, as the MHA and provincial representative, I get it and I
understand that's where the complaints fall, in my lap.
These
petitions are coming in, like I say, on a daily basis and I encourage people, if
you have concerns – they ask for petitions, here you go. I'll bring it to the
House of Assembly.
I've
spoken to the minister about this, but I have petitions to present and it's my
duty as an MHA to present them on behalf of the residents I represent, to bring
their concerns to the floor of the House, which is what I'm doing.
The road
is in dire need of repair. There are huge craters, I call them, they're not
potholes anymore; they're becoming craters. People are complaining and
rightfully so. It needs repairs. It's on for 2023, we'd like to see it done
sooner than that, just based on the sheer traffic volume, Mr. Speaker.
There
are two schools on that road as well. It's a busy, busy road and I appreciate if
the government could consider moving this ahead, where it's already on the list,
it's identified for repairs. We need it done sooner rather than later.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, our five-year roads plan has been
tremendously successful. In the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we've paved some
1,400 kilometres of roads in the province. This year again, we will invest over
$130 million into roads in our province.
This
government, our government has been able to work out a new arrangement with
Ottawa where they are now going to come in and contribute as well to northern
and rural roads, Mr. Speaker. And when I say northern and rural roads in
Newfoundland and Labrador, that means practically every single road in the
province except the Trans-Canada Highway.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we've been extremely successful with our roads plan. We get this from
the road builders and many other organizations with the success of our roads
plan.
In the
Member's district, we've put significant monies into Peacekeepers Way every
single year. Peacekeepers Way is the primary highway built in there, it's a new
highway, and we certainly make sure that every single year the necessary funds
are going into that.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I'll respond with the rest of my answer at his next (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experience injuries, have not been bathed regularly, not
received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes
the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents
in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing
persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating
conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,
proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law will include the
creation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and
intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, I present this again today on behalf of the Advocates for Senior
Citizens' Rights. Most of the people on these petitions today are actually from
Lab City, Wabush and those areas.
This is
an issue which people have concerns about all throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. It's not about, I will say again, as I've said each time I've spoke to
this petition, this is not in any way inferring that the nurses and doctors and
staff at our health care facilities and our long-term care facilities are not
compassionate, are not doing their jobs, are not doing the best they can with
what they have. It is in no way inferring that nutritious food is not on the
menu and not being served and so on. It's not what they are suggesting.
The
concern that they have is are there enough staff working at all times to ensure
people in long-term care, particularly those on dementia and Alzheimer's wards,
ensuring that there are enough staff to take care of these people, to ensure
that they are changed regularly as required, to ensure not only that there are
nutritious meals provided, but that they're actually able to be fed because some
of these people are not capable of feeding themselves. If a family member walks
into the room at suppertime and dinner is still laid there, by the bedside and
the person is not capable of feeding themselves, and they weren't fed, that's a
big problem.
No one
is suggesting that's happening every day, by the way, or that it's always
happening but, apparently, it does happen. That is the concern. That's why they
want to ensure we always have appropriate staffing.
We hear
of situations in the health authorities where they talk about this not replacing
the first sick call. Is that happening in long-term care as well? If it is, it
shouldn't be. There should always be enough people to look after our seniors.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think,
whilst I understand the concerns that the Member opposite raises, the frequency
with which he has brought the same petition back and to would lead a casual
observer to believe that this is an endemic issue and that somehow patients are,
despite what he says, being neglected or malnourished or ill fed.
I think
I need to stand and correct that illusion, simply by getting up and repeating
the same thing every day if needed. Staffing levels in health, in long-term
care, are as good, if not better, than the national average in terms of nursing
care and those figures do not take into account recreational therapy,
occupational therapy and visitors.
There is
a diligent effort to make sure that people who cannot feed themselves are fed
warm, hot food at a time that works for everyone, Mr. Speaker. I think really
repetition like this is not serving anyone's interest.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Nice to speak in the House of
Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
To the
background this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
the successful proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to
be announced this spring for construction anticipated to begin in the fall and,
as this is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and as there are
experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows: To
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that are
awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourers, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own
area, support their local families and be able to return home to their families
every evening.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise again to stand in this House, and always looking forward to
speaking in this House, Mr. Speaker, about the people out in the Humber - Bay of
Islands, Corner Brook and I'm sure down the Northern Peninsula, Baie Verte, down
around Port au Port, Stephenville way, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these people will
be working here.
I know
the Member for Corner Brook is very much in agreement in trying to do what we
can to get local workers working. They are experienced workers. They're great
workers, Mr. Speaker, and when you bring in people from outside – and this is no
reflection on the workers from outside, but it's like I mentioned to a person
earlier, like up in Alberta. Sure a lot of Newfoundlanders live in Alberta, but
I'm sure there are a lot of local people that are looked after first, for the
cost of it. So this is nothing against other workers because a lot of
Newfoundlanders work in other areas.
There
are a lot of local tradespeople, lot of good labourers in the Humber - Bay of
Islands area who can do this job, who are willing to do the job.
I know
they're speaking to the union, and I say to the minister again, I know you're
being proactive in this matter and I'm offering my services again because I do
have a good rapport with a lot of the unions around, which I know you do too
minister, that you do as the Minister of Transportation and Works.
So I'm
looking forward to a positive outcome for this with the new hospital so that it
can be built locally with local workers and build the best hospital that we can.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. As the hon. Member identifies, we've been
working with the Newfoundland and Labrador construction industry association,
we've also been working with TradesNL. We've been working with TradesNL around
the concept of CBAs or Community Benefit Agreements, and this is something that
we're starting to see in other provinces as well. I think the Member sort of
outlined that when he talked about home first.
Mr.
Speaker, we've taken on a very aggressive infrastructure plan. You look at the
commitments that we've made: a new long-term care facility in Corner Brook, a
new acute-care facility in Corner Brook, new Central long-term care both in
Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor, and that's something that we will be announcing,
the successful proponent in the coming days. Also, the expansion of protective
care beds in Botwood at the Hugh Twomey centre as well. We've also made the
commitment to the new mental health facility right here in St. John's.
Our
commitment to infrastructure in this province has been steadfast and it will
remain steadfast, as will our commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador companies
and Newfoundland and Labrador workers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Sir. Thank you
very much.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in
areas where there are no sidewalks or traffic lights, and through areas without
crosswalks. This puts the safety of these children at risk.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children by removing the
restrictive 1.6-kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a petition that I bring to the House of Assembly on a regular
basis. I recently spoke to some parents that had major concerns with their
children walking to school, and we discussed different options for them and I
explained, too, what the courtesy seating and courtesy busing is doing and
different stops and stuff like that. But in the schools where I am, particularly
in Torbay, is the major issue for me, where there are so many cars travelling
along Torbay Road, that there are no courtesy seats available because the buses
are full and the courtesy stops are not available.
I have
to say, I've spoken to the minister about this on several occasions and I've
sent him some correspondence with different parents with concerns of mine and
there's only one way to really fix this. We really have to have a look – I
understand that it's a job probably to do 1.6 eliminated altogether, but there
maybe something we can do where people are walking along the road where there
are no sidewalks.
Maybe we
can look at it to K to 6. Maybe we can look at different areas, but I think it's
time for us just to look at this policy, address the policy and look at the
concerns of the parents and grandparents and the school and everybody in the
area, because safety should be the ultimate concern of all people. Anytime we
put our children at risk going to school, that is a concern of everybody. It
should be the concern of everybody.
I just
ask the minister to consider this, and, actually, the parents I spoke to the
other day, they said: Kevin, this is a good time to get it on and talk to the
minister about it and keep it going because it's an election year. They feel
that that may be a result in changing some of the policies that government will
have on this.
This is
very important, I know, in a lot of districts, not only in my own. I ask
government to really reconsider the policy and do something about it.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 51.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for allowing me to rise and initiate debate on Bill 51, An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act, which will be seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's -
Humber.
This is
an amendment to a bill which really does demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that smart
change, however small, can produce big benefits. We are –
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 51 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.” (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed, Sir.
MR. BYRNE:
I shall proceed then, Mr.
Speaker. I shall start over.
Mr.
Speaker, seconded by the Member for St. George's - Humber, this is An Act To
Amend The Forestry Act, but we're here today to talk about agriculture, which
demonstrates the fact that it is very important that we understand our
industries, our key industry of agriculture and how it relates to all of other
land resource industries. How synergies can be made, co-operative arrangements
can be made, that understandings can be made by having our land resources
operating effectively, synergistically with each other, supporting each other,
because an amendment to the Forestry Act,
Mr. Speaker, can indeed produce a big benefit to our farmers.
Now,
what this amendment is about is to amend the
Forestry Act to allow for the harvest
of forest resources of timber, of fibre from an agricultural area, from an
agricultural lease area, without the necessary, otherwise necessary, previously
necessary, commercial cutting permit.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I said earlier that smart change, however small, can indeed produce big
benefit. This is an example of that. Mr. Speaker, you might say, well, what
exactly is so onerous or so difficult or what is the nature of the regulation or
the requirement, the statutory requirement that those who cut timber should have
to have a commercial cutting permit to be able to do so?
Mr.
Speaker, it's about making sure that our forest industry is well regulated. That
those who are engaged in commercial activity in forests are properly regulated.
That it's controlled and produces the desired result which it is meant to
achieve, but we also recognize that, for the clearing of agricultural land,
there is a necessity often, most often, to be able to clear timber, clear trees
from that land and what was previously required was that a commercial cutting
permit would be required.
Well,
there are two options here now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this amendment once
passed is that should a farmer who is entitled or a holder of a agricultural
lease, should that farmer wish that they would not engage in a commercial sale
of the timber, that they can simply have the right, maintain the right, control
the right to be able to harvest that timber without getting a commercial
forestry permit.
Now,
it's important to note that should the farmer wish to sell that timber, they
will still be required to obtain a commercial forestry permit. Is it onerous, is
it difficult to obtain a commercial forestry permit? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.
In fact, a simple application. There is a prerequisite fee which is relatively
minimal or marginal in magnitude that would be required, but there would also
have to be, as a result, the necessary reporting, the necessary stumpage fees
paid and other elements.
There
would be red tape. What this measure does, Mr. Speaker, is it eliminates a
significant body of red tape for our farmers, for our agricultural producers, as
they develop, as they prepare their land base.
It's not
complicated, Mr. Speaker. I'm pretty confident that this amendment will be
passed by all Members of the House or voted on affirmatively by all Members of
the House. I anticipate there may be some questions. Most of the questions were
dealt with in our technical briefing that was made available to all parties.
There appeared to be consensus or strong agreement that this was a worthwhile
initiative. So, Mr. Speaker, while I can say further what elements of this
particular amendment will be, I think that it's self explanatory in its own
right.
The
objective here, Mr. Speaker, is not to resolve a red-tape issue by creating an
unfair or imbalanced playing field. The original reason why a commercial permit
was required of a farmer when they cleared the land was so that they were not in
a competitive advantage if they were to sell that timber, they would not be in a
competitive advantage over our forest producers, our forest industry.
So,
there was a necessity for a commercial forest permit because you would not want
them to be able to do, through special privilege, what our commercial foresters
could not do. In the same regard, we recognize that it was also imposing an
additional red tape, or a burden, for those that did not wish to sell. Even if
you did not wish to sell your timber you still had to have a commercial forestry
permit as required under the Forestry Act.
You'd also have to engage in all the necessary reporting.
So, what
this amendment is not – we've spoke a fair bit about what this amendment is –
what this amendment is not is a barrier from farmers from selling the wood that
they harvest off their land. If they wish, they can still sell by acquiring a
commercial forestry permit, the same as a commercial forester would. It creates
a balanced, level playing field.
That
which is commercial activity should be covered under commercial rules, that
which is not commercial activity should be governed under a different set of
rules. This creates the set of rules so that if the wood is not being sold, if
it's being used on the farm by the farmer, then there are no further
requirements.
If the
wood – and this has been raised in some of the technical outreach that we
conducted – the farmer wishes to transfer the wood off of the farm and gift it,
well, there is capacity in this particular amendment, the act does allow for
further consequential regulation to be made to allow that. We'll engage in a
discussion about that in due course.
This
act, the amendment to the statutory form of the rules, basically, provides for
an opportunity for the farmer to harvest the wood and use the wood on the
location of the farm for their own uses. It has been raised that maybe there
might be an instance where the farmer would like to gift the wood. We can
deal with that at a subsequent time. We have full capacity to be able to do
that. The objective here is to amend the statutory form of the control so that
we can deal with it at a subsequent time.
If the argument is: Well, why can't the farmer just simply
sell the wood? Well, then, of course, they're engaging in a commercial activity
outside of farming. They're engaged in commercial forestry activity, they can
sell the wood. They simply acquire a commercial forestry permit to be able to do
so.
So it's very straightforward, Mr. Speaker. This is a very
positive element, very positive initiative. We've consulted widely with this,
with the agriculture – this has been something that the agriculture sector has
been looking for, for a while. We've all heard of situations – not all that
often, it hasn't come up all that often, but it's come up enough that farmers
have said: Why is it that I cannot simply harvest the wood off the land that
I've been given title to? Why can't I harvest wood? Why do I have to pretend
that I'm a commercial operator and acquire a commercial permit?
This amends that particular situation to allow a level
playing field. If you're engaged in a commercial activity, it would be governed
under commercial rules. If you're not engaged in the commercial activity, it
would be governed under a different set of rules. Very simple, straightforward.
Our farm community really applauds this. It's a simple
change, straightforward change, small change, but can play a big, big positive
benefit. It speaks, Mr. Speaker, to what it is we're trying to accomplish
overall in growing our agricultural industry.
We need to do whatever we can, we only produce 10 per cent
of our food in this province – 10 per cent. Our supply managed system, through
supply management in dairy and eggs and chicken, produce not only what we eat,
but we export. Supply management has worked well for us because not only are we
in those three supply-managed commodities producing everything that we are consuming in this province, but we have
room for export in industrial milk, in industrial eggs and, occasionally, in
chicken as well.
So,
that's working well for us, but it's on the other sectors, on beef, on root
crops, on fruits and berries, on a number of different fronts, we do not produce
all that we consume. In fact, we only produce 10 per cent and that 10 per cent
is actually even factoring in the supply-management commodities.
So, we
have taken an ambitious objective, Mr. Speaker, to change that, to double our
production in a very, very short period of time. How are we doing that? Well, in
a number of ways because we are looking at agriculture with fresh eyes. We're
looking at agriculture with fresh eyes. We're seeing what the barriers to growth
are and we're correcting them.
One of
the things that we've identified is the land. Mr. Speaker, generally speaking,
largely speaking, almost exclusively speaking, land is key to farming. That's
why we identified 64,000 hectares of agriculture areas of interest. There are
two benefits to identifying 64,000 hectares of Newfoundland and Labrador soil,
of land, for development for agricultural purposes. One, for existing farmers
and for new farmers, there's a pre-identified agricultural ready allotment of
land that can be targeted for their developments.
There's
already been assessments done of this land so we know a good bit about it
already in terms of whether or not it's suitable for agriculture. So, that's
been identified. A lot of the regulatory hoops have already been cleared so that
the processing time for applications is much reduced, because we know this has
been pre-identified not to have a claim against it by a (inaudible) lot, by a
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper lot or some other title holder. So that's important.
The
second, and this is very, very important to say and say out loud, by
pre-identifying 64,000 hectares of agriculture areas of interest, agriculture
land, we protect it for the future. Because, as we know, everywhere in North
America, just about every agricultural economy in the planet, there is a serious
and disturbing reduction in agricultural land. It's been used for other
purposes. It is being eroded.
We here
in Newfoundland and Labrador, being relatively green field in our agricultural
practices in our current context, we have an opportunity, and we saw this
opportunity that we can protect our agricultural areas of interest, our
agricultural land so that it is noted that when there are competing uses, we
noted that this can indeed be used for agricultural land, agricultural purposes.
Is it
always tied up? Is it exclusively for agricultural purposes? No, but we have
noted that when decisions have to be taken, choices have to be taken, this is
land which is very suitable for agriculture and it guides our decision-making
process.
Very,
very important, Mr. Speaker, to note the two benefits of our 64,000 identified
agricultural areas of interest. It's not only to supply farmers today, and
future farmers, but it's to protect our land base so that we understand where it
is, so that we can ensure that, unlike other areas of North America and the
Western Hemisphere, agricultural economies that have always depended on
agriculture, that that is not unduly eroded.
Now, in
St. John's, for example, since the 1970s, we've had the St. John's agriculture
development area. There have been tens of thousands – back from the '70s – of
acres of agricultural areas that have been zoned for agricultural purpose. This
came up just recently as a public discussion, a public policy issue of great
concern. There was a noted erosion of the St. John's agricultural areas from
that protection.
Back in
the 1970s, literally, just within months after having declared and zoned those
areas as agricultural areas, the Frank Moores administration and the Peckford
administration, in particular, delisted literally thousands and thousands and
thousands of those acres from control. In fact, the most recent example of the
St. John's area agricultural areas being delisted, or de-zoned was in 2013, Mr.
Speaker, when over 1,600 acres of former agricultural land was allowed to be
used for other developments.
So, I
can say, and say quite confidently, while we have an appeal process, if there's
a particular piece of land which is unsuitable within that designation,
unsuitable for agriculture, it can be appealed. We are not going back to 2013, I
can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. That would be a serious mistake.
We have
done other things, Mr. Speaker, in agriculture, including we have re-profiled
the former Wooddale forestry centre. It's still involved in forestry. It's still
key to our forestry sector. It still grows our seedlings for our forest sector
for silviculture for replanting, but we recognize that there's not only
infrastructure but skills there, a land base there that can be so appropriately
used for agricultural development and it has been re-profiled now as the
Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Development in Wooddale.
Really a great move, we're producing seedlings there, Mr.
Speaker, and we're making those seedlings available, those vegetable and other
crops, we're making those seedlings available to farmers. We're selling them at
cost but at much reduced cost then what they otherwise do and, as a net result,
farmers are increasing their balance, increasing their bank accounts by
significant amounts of money as a result and growing more food.
There are other initiatives that we've done. For the first
time ever, Mr. Speaker, since 1949, we're the only province, the only province
in Canada that did not have a post-secondary agriculture training program. Can
you believe that? In 2019, Newfoundland and Labrador, after over 65 years of
Confederation, we did not – we were the only province in Canada not to have a
post-secondary agricultural program.
Mr. Speaker, this government has changed that. Effective as
of September of 2019, that will be our first enrolments into the College of the
North Atlantic's forestry technology program at the Corner Brook campus. We will
also have outreach programs through the College of the North Atlantic in
continuing education for our farmers. That's really, really important and very
valuable.
Other things that we're doing in our farm industry, Mr.
Speaker – I believe that given the focus on the amendment today, I'll surrender
my time. I believe the Member for St. George's - Humber would like to have a few
words on this, he's worked hard on this initiative himself. I'm sure other
Members will want to speak up, but I'm very confident, Mr. Speaker, very, very
confident that there will be unanimous support for this amendment, as there is
unanimous support for growing our agriculture industry. The Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, this government, is really putting its shoulder into
it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is a renaissance that's
happening. A renaissance in support for farms and for farming and for
recognizing that this is a key component of our economy. Food security is an
essential component of our well-being and whereas farms and farming and, in
particular, farmers, really were not on the tip of the tongue of the people of
our province in a daily conversation, they are moving
with incredible support and
reaching out to our farms, our farm community and reaching out to our farmers to
say we recognize what you're doing is essential. Our very food safety, our food
security is dependent on you and we have trust in you.
That,
Mr. Speaker, echoes what people are saying about this government's farm growth
initiative, our Way Forward on
agriculture, people are saying for the first time in a very, very long time,
people are now supportive and openly saying farming is something that we need to
support as a province, and they're saying this government is standing up tall to
the challenge.
The
reality is, Mr. Speaker, in 1949, we had 3,400 farms, and we were nearly 100 per
cent food secure. We grew all of our own food. From the period between 2011 and
2015, we lost 20 per cent of our farms. In a period between 2011 and 2015, we
lost 20 per cent of our farms. From the period between Confederation of 1949 and
2015, we went from 3,400 farms to just over 500.
It's
incredible, Mr. Speaker. You can understand why we are only at 10 per cent food
self-sufficiency. You can understand why this government said we need to, at a
very minimum, double this. Now, doubling food production in a short period of
time may seem ambitious, and it is, because we're going to double it in a very
short period of time, but, Mr. Speaker, rest assured, through amendments like
this, small changes can lead to big dividends. We're leaving no stone unturned.
This will produce a positive result and I look forward to the positive, positive
words of Members of the Opposition as they rise to their feet and they say –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Absolutely. Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
– the Member is absolutely
right, we need to support our farmers and the truth is the evidence is in, they
weren't supported before. They are now.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 51, and I guess I'd just like to
speak to one little comment there when the minister had stood up and said that
farmers were never at the tip of people's tongues. Well, to the best of my
knowledge, they are three times a day.
AN HON. MEMBER:
At least.
MR. LESTER:
At least three times a day.
We, as
an Opposition and I guess through my involvement as a farmer and through
industry involvement, are pleased to see that this change did come about. We're
also pleased to see that the current administration has continued to push
forward the ground work of previous administrations in supporting the
agriculture industry and realizing how imperative it is to have more food
production.
Just
some facts that I must correct and, I guess, give some clarity to before I get
into talking about the impacts of this legislation. The minister talked of how
farms, numbers of farms have actually decreased since Confederation, but I would
like to speak to what has increased.
We are
now almost 200 per cent self-sufficient in our egg production in this province.
We actually produce all the fresh eggs we eat, plus we export a large amount of
eggs to further processing. We are now 100 per cent self-sufficient in fluid
milk. We also export a fair bit of what we call industrial milk for processing
outside the province. I look forward to support from this administration and
future administrations to establishing secondary processing of this industrial
milk for our own consumption and export.
When it
comes to chicken, we are actually at our maximum allowable quota because it's a
national system and a national quota, it accounts for about 65 plus or minus per
cent of the chicken we eat. So, unfortunately, unless there's a change in the
national quota system, we're at our limit of production of chicken as well.
There
are a lot of things that obviously have declined. The number of farms. The
number of farms, globally, has exponentially disappeared because of the economy
of scale, largely. I can remember as a child, I could look around my own
neighbourhood and there was probably 17 or 18 dairy farms, different farm
families all had a couple of dozen cows, up to 30 cows. Now, there are actually
more cows in my neighbourhood, but there are only three farms.
It's all
the economy of scale. Farms have to get bigger because, unfortunately, the
profit margin per unit has not grown as fast as the overhead costs that farmers
have had to bear.
I can't
remember which president it was, it might've been Eisenhower, but his theory was
if you can keep the price of food low, everything else will stay down low with
it, that would keep inflation down. That has not worked. The price of food is
still low. In North America, we pay the lowest percentage of our annual income
on food other than a Third World country. So that's something that we have to
look at, increasing the viability of farms.
Now,
we're going to speak to this legislative change. While it is very well intended,
I caution the department in its implementation. It's well intended but not a
whole lot of thought put into the background of what's going to happen, other
than it's not going to require farmers to get permits. When it comes to the
discretion of the forestry officers who will be enforcing this, even in the
briefing there was a bit of a miscommunication or a disagreement between the
representation of the department and the representation of the minister in which
it was kind of indicated that, well, the forestry officers might turn a blind
eye to when we come to gifting and helping people out.
I agree
with that, but what is the purpose of legislation? Legislation is designed so
that we all know where we stand when it comes to the rules, so that we don't end
up with nuisance court cases, that if I cut a load of wood and bring it to my
relative down the road who's unable to cut wood for themselves, that I'm going
to get charged with not having a permit.
I know
the minister has just said that can be put in after, right. So is that going to
be put in after somebody is charged and someone has to go to court and defend
themselves? Is that going to be put in after, when an embarrassed forestry
officer says, well, I shouldn't have wrote you that ticket, sorry, I'm taking it
back. We need to have the details secured as to what we can and cannot do on an
agricultural lease.
Another
thing that was kind of not really taken in consideration was, part of the
transition of farms and family farms is the incorporation of farms. I know in my
own particular instance and my families, extended families, all our farms are
now incorporated. So, in itself, the farm is an individual. Yes, we own shares
in that. So is that individual, the corporate body, allowed to give the same
rights as the corporate body, to the shareholders? Can I take wood from my farm,
or can other shareholders in my farm, take wood from that farm and bring it to
their personal residence, build their personal residence or burn it in their
stoves for heat?
Another
thing that was brought to my attention is, does this specifically apply to that
Crown lease? Obviously, Newfoundland can't be turned into one giant field.
Sometimes farmers have to drive hours from one field to the other. So, in
transport of that wood from one Crown lease to another or to the farm home base,
how are we going to enforce that that wood is actually from that Crown lease?
How are we going to do that? Is that going to be more work for forestry officers
or are they going to be given a carte blanche to transport?
Another
thing that is a little bit of a concern is from the forestry side. I'm going to
look at a piece of land, and as a farmer I look at it as, okay, well, I can't
wait to get these trees out of here, get the overburden off, get the ground
tilled, the rocks removed and get plants in the ground. But if I owned a private
sawmill, if I was in the forestry industry, and I looked across the way and saw
a farmer with a couple of hundred acres of prime saw logs and saw him going in
with his D12 with a 25- or 40-foot blade and pushing all those saw logs up into
a pile to be shredded or to be burned or turned into firewood, I'd be kind of
disappointed.
I really
think that there may actually be a space where, or some sort of lateral
discretion when it comes to the department and the minister, that we don't see
good saw logs, which are high value, turned into mulch or turned into wood
pellets or turned into firewood. We have to look at this, what implications it's
going to have on all industries, not only just agriculture, but also the
forestry industry.
It has
been a contentious issue since time immemorial, well, since Confederation, for
sure, the fight over forestry land and agriculture land because the reality is a
land that grows good trees is probably going to grow good crops too. We want to
see and a continued co-operation between both forestry and agriculture. As the
minister has indicated, the synergies and the partnerships that can be forged,
yes, they're beneficial, but often very difficult to attain without clear cut
rules.
We need
to elaborate on this as to how this can best benefit, not only the forestry and
agriculture industries, but also the economy of our province, because we're
talking Crown leases. A Crown lease is not a grant. Most of us are very familiar
with, oh, I have that deed in my hand, this is my land; I can do whatever I want
with it. But as a Crown lease it still technically remains property of the
Crown, property of the people of this province.
Why that
is, is because, as the minister has referred, in through St. John's and other
areas we've seen valuable agricultural land taken out of agricultural production
and used for other purposes. Whereas, now with the Crown leasing process, it's
specifically outlined that process and the issuance of that lease, that this
land has been given to you by the Crown for the purpose of agricultural
production. If you are to transfer it, to sell it, to use it for another use, it
will have to primarily go back to the Crown for the Crown's consent.
Another
thing that has also occurred within the Crown lease, and I'm also pleased and I
think this came from the previous administration, people can't use a Crown land
lease as a get-rich scheme. You can't go into an area and mark off 100 acres and
say, yeah, I'm going to be a farmer and not do anything with it, and 10 years
down the road you can't say, okay, I'm going to take this agriculture lease and
I'm going to put strips of cabins around that pond and sell those building lots
for an increased amount.
The
lease structure and fees are very, very minimal, and so they should be because,
obviously, if the cost of farming goes up, well the cost of food has to go up
too. So there's really no opportunity there to turn this into a revenue
generation in the form of lease payments, it's more of an administrative service
purpose.
We want
to make sure that our Crown land and our agricultural soiled resources are
developed and this is one step towards doing that.
We hear
about the 64,000 acres that has been mentioned time and time again, almost to
the point of duress. Those 64,000 acres have always existed in this province.
It's taken decades of soil surveys, aerial photos and satellite projections to
identify this. This land just didn't come about in the past four years, let me
assure you that.
This is
land that has always been there, always capable of producing food. What the
challenge has been is farmers, as good hearted and benevolent as they are, they
can't do things for free. They have to feed their families. They have to put
clothes on their families. They also have to afford themselves some sort of
reasonable lifestyle.
So, the
reason that those 64,000 acres haven't already been put into production is
largely economics. It is not the fact that they just showed up. It's because
farming in Newfoundland and Labrador has been very challenging. We're always
under pressure from imports coming into the province and when you look at the
only three, basically, industries that have risen to their potential are ones
being under the control of supply management, that being dairy, chicken and
eggs. What that means for those who are not familiar with it, supply management
was designed to, number one, keep a stable supply – pardon the pun – of those
commodities in the Canadian food system, but also designed so that farmers were
protected from the market ups and downs, and that they could get a reasonable
return for their investment, a reasonable return for their efforts. Those items,
being chicken, eggs and milk, the farmer knows what they're going to get for
that.
Now,
we've seen as of recent due to, I guess, the (inaudible) amongst the federal
department, the federal government, a 3 per cent intrusion of American products
into our dairy system. Now, people say, 3 per cent, that's not a whole lot. But
when you look at average farming profit margin is maybe 4.5 to 5 per cent, we're
cutting those farmers down pretty lean, and it's not going to take much of a
natural disaster or a commodity price increase: corn, wheat, which is all driven
by supply and demand, and, of course, unfortunately, our supplies of corn and
wheat and commodities are now also a stock market game. The speculation of these
futures on these products is actually driving up the cost of food to every North
American.
So, the
64,000 acres, I would love to say in my lifetime I'm going to see farms on all
of it, but I know that's not going to happen. Even as of today, there's very
limited amount of that 64,000 acres that has been transitioned into agricultural
property.
One of
the challenges farmers are facing, yes, they're responding to the demand to
increase production, to make our province more sustainable, to make our province
more efficient when it comes to producing food, but the biggest challenge of
that is, it hasn't been complemented with increased government funding. The
funding that's available to us today, as farmers – and I keep speaking from my
own perspective as a farmer – but the funding that's available to us today is
similar to that of previous decades. We had Growing Forward. We had the APF
agreement. Each one, basically, offers a similar amount based on our province's
population.
Now, in
our province – I'll commend the former administration, the current
administration, but largely industry groups such as the Newfoundland and
Labrador Federation of Agriculture, the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the Horticulture Council, the egg farmers, the chicken producers, the
fur breeders – who else am I missing – the sheep producers, beef producers and
the beekeepers, all of them contribute to lobbying federal and provincial
governments to attaint the level of funding that we have. Food is not, I guess,
an element to be politicized because without it we're all in big trouble. We
need to concentrate on the virtue of increasing our food production in this
province. We need to concentrate on making our farmers sustainable and
profitable and efficient.
This
little change in legislation is another step in the right direction. I have
cleared property in the past, albeit it has been in a different form of land
tenure, but I can remember my grandfather telling me that when most of the land
in through the Goulds and Kilbride area was cleared, the farmers used to cut the
wood, of course by bucksaw or axe, they would load it aboard a long cart pulled
by horses and they'd bring it down to the rail siding. It would be put aboard
trains and shipped to the nearest pulp and paper mill.
When you
look around our woods and think of the forest industry we have today, it's a job
to believe that we here on the Avalon contributed to the pulp and paper industry
by shipping wood cleared from farm land, but to that point, that was a major
part of the clearing of land was the sale of that wood. The farmers were able to
sell that wood and compensate for the clearing that would be incurred.
That's
kind of a bit of concern and maybe down the road we could look at more of an
exemption for the clearing of farm land because, as I said, this is a Crown
lease. This is public resource, a public asset. It's kind of – I want to say
unfair but I guess that wouldn't be the appropriate word, but it's definitely an
additional challenge for farmers to clear land and not be able to attain 100 per
cent of the value of their work by removing those trees.
Right
now, the current state of subsidization for clearing farm land is based on, I
guess, submitted receipts, but largely the maximum value that a farmer can
obtain for clearing a piece of land is $3,000 an acre, and that's through either
the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program or the federal-provincial
partnership.
Now,
that's fine if it's an ideal piece of land, but I have yet to see a piece of
land on the Avalon Peninsula, in particular, that can be cleared and put into
production for $3,000. I've cleared land myself, and speaking with my other
family members, my uncles and other producers in the industry, they're
proponents of a case-by-case level of subsidization because there is land in
this province that can be cleared and put in production for about $1,200 an
acre. Here on the Avalon and other areas throughout the province, there's good
soil there but whether it be drainage, be it excessive overburden, or trees, or
rocks, sometimes those clearings per acre can quickly ramp up to $5,000, $6,000
and even $7,000 an acre.
So
people say why don't you just move to another area where there's more, I guess,
better quality land, easier to clear? Well, of that 64,000 acres, that could be
right in the middle of God knows, anywhere, no roads, no access and the cost of
travelling from one point in your farm to another, that's another issue.
Right
now, provincially, we have a bylaw where – I don't know if there'd be a bylaw –
there are laws and legislations saying that on the designated highways you are
not allowed to travel below a certain speed limit. I guess many of us have been
stuck behind a tractor, myself included, and the fastest tractor I've personally
ever driven has been 62 kilometres an hour.
I
remember my grandfather, he used to say every now and then, he said I'm going to
go make myself popular. What he would do is get in the tractor and drive up and
down the road and he would become quite popular. He used to say he used to get
the one-finger salute many times.
So
that's a challenge why farmers have to clear the land close to their home bases.
A piece of land right next door to your home base or your farmyard, that's a lot
more efficient over the course of a lifetime because when farmers look at
clearing a piece of land they don't only just look at their occupation of this
land, they look at future generations.
My kids
are the seventh generation of farmers in our family. To the best of my
knowledge, our family is one of the longest running farms. We're almost into
double century occupation as a farmer.
Back to
speak to the purpose of this, the industry has asked for it, farmers have asked
for it. It's definitely essential to going forward to reduce the amount of red
tape and burden. I look forward to asking questions in Committee, but I would
like to commend the government for bringing this forward at the request of
industry and the individual farmer.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity to talk about this bill, Bill 51, An Act to Amend
the Forestry Act, but it's really an opportunity to talk about forestry and
agriculture together and how they interrelate.
The
purpose is to exempt holders of agricultural Crown land from commercial cutting
permits to clear land where timber is not for sale or for barter. So it relates
to Crown land – this is people who have Crown land leased and are clearing it to
do farming. If someone has a farm now, if they own the farm clear and outright,
this doesn't apply to them and it doesn't restrict them in any way in terms of
what they could do in the past, and what they can do now. It gives some
advantage to people who have Crown land and are clearing that land for
agricultural purposes.
So the
intent of this piece of legislation is to support our agriculture industry, to
facilitate collaboration between forestry and agriculture with regards to the
utilization of merchantable timber as promoted in
The Way Forward on Forestry
and also it's to reduce red tape and permitting related to new entrants and
established farms when accessing new land for development.
I should
also say that this piece of legislation is the result of consultation with both
the agriculture industry, through the Federation of Agriculture and the forestry
industry, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Industry Association. So,
it has broad industry support from both the agricultural sector and from the
forestry sector. Sometimes that's not always the case. Sometimes there's
competition for uses for land either forestry or agriculture, but, in this case,
everyone is in agreement that this change is something that's positive and will
make things better.
The
current legislation, if you have a Crown lease, you're clearing the land. In
order to cut that wood and to use it, you have to get a cutting permit. You get
a cutting permit, you apply, get a cutting permit to cut the timber. Once you've
cut the timber you have to scale the timber. The timber has to be assessed and
you have to pay a royalty on the timber that you've cut on the Crown land – lot
of red tape, a lot of paperwork, a lot of trouble for farmers that are clearing
new land. It's a lot of trouble for new entrants who are clearing land to expand
their agriculture enterprise.
The red
tape is one of the things that this change to the
Forestry Act, this amendment to the
Forestry Act will bring about. It will make it easier for people who
want to do this. It'll cut the red tape out of the way. It'll support
agriculture in that there will be no requirement for a cutting permit. Timber
can be used to support the operation of the agricultural enterprise.
If you
have wood that you're using to build a fence or to build a barn, or even if you
have wood that you're using as firewood to heat a greenhouse, that is all
acceptable under these changes; whereas in the past you would have to go through
getting a permit, getting the timber that you're using scaled and supplying all
the paperwork related to that. This is a very positive change. It really
eliminates a lot of red tape and administrative work that really adds no value
to the whole process. It makes it easier for people starting agricultural
enterprises to pursue clearing land and to benefit from the wood that's secured
from that land.
The
clearing of land is happening a lot in agriculture ventures in this province. I
mentioned one way to use the wood would be to heat a greenhouse. I was at a
facility in Black Duck Siding about a month or a month and a half ago, and it
was the middle of winter, one of the coldest days we had. I walked into this
greenhouse and I was surprised to see tomatoes; hundreds, thousands of tomatoes
in the middle of winter in Newfoundland. These were being commercially grown,
commercially sold and used in restaurants; sold at Colemans store in Corner
Brook and other locations around the province.
The name
of the company is Growing for Life. I think what they're doing there is a great
example for other people in this province. It's a great example of what can be
done here in this province. The whole facility is heated with locally-sourced
firewood. It's a solution to a problem we have, in terms of how to grow
vegetables that we eat in a cold climate during the coldest time of the year.
The company is very innovative. They're doing a lot of different things on the
West Coast and they're very much a success story. So I just wanted to mention
them.
Also,
the Member for Mount Pearl North spoke about the dairy and other industries. One
of the reasons we're seeing a lot of land cleared in this province is the grains
that are needed to support these industries. We're seeing different grains that
are grown in this province today that people would've told you 20 years ago
that, no, you can't grow corn in Newfoundland; no, you can't grow winter wheat
in Newfoundland. You can't grow canola, you can't grow soybeans and all of those
things, but there are people today who are growing thousands of acres of corn in
Newfoundland. That means our dairy industry is more viable, it's more
profitable. Those are the sort of things that are happening within the industry
and why clearing land is so important. So it's a very positive move. It's a very
positive thing that's happening here.
In terms
of my experience with talking with farmers who are clearing land, there was a
couple that was starting a new sheep farm in Loch Leven and they were clearing
some land to get their agricultural operation underway. One of the conditions of
the lease they had was that this timber that was on their land had to be cut. So
for them to get that timber removed they probably would have to wait for a
commercial cutter to come along and to look after that, but in this
circumstance, it would probably be easier for them to cut the wood, use it
themselves on their farm operation.
So it's
a very positive change that's being brought about. There are some very exciting
things that are happening in agriculture in this province. This sort of little
change is something that can help the people who are starting new enterprises
and getting underway in that industry. So I just wanted to make a few comments
on that and encourage all Members to support this piece of legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
glad to have time to speak to Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act. I won't
have a lot to say. I mean, in and of itself the amendment is short in terms of
words, obviously, but very meaningful in terms of what it is doing for the
agricultural industry.
Both the
minister and the former speakers have spoken to the bill and explained the
importance of farmers now being able to cut timber on land that they are
clearing without obtaining a cutting permit to clear that land. I'm not going to
belabour the explanation. If somebody is listening and needs to check in on the
bill and learn about it then I invite them to read
Hansard when the time comes and we'll have full explanations there
of the bill. It's extremely very simple, so it's not hard to understand.
The
minister, though, went on to talk about government looking at agriculture with
fresh eyes and all the work that government is doing to help the farming
industry, the agricultural industry in the province. It's true that helping have
clear land without obstacles in the way for farmers is important, and it's true
that the identification of 64,000 hectares of land for development for
agriculture in the province is important, and I do agree with him that land is
sort of the first step – land is key, I think is what the minister said when he
was speaking. Land is key to the agricultural industry, and I'm sure we all
fully understand that that's the case, but it's going to take more than access
to land and ability to clear land without being penalized –
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me.
Order,
please!
Sir, can
I ask – I would direct you not, please, to go through somebody else's desk and
their materials on their desk. I just observed you, Sir, going through the desk
of another minister.
MR. JOYCE:
I was getting money for shoes
for kids in (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Sir, I still would suggest we
respect each other's confidences here.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Boys, oh boys, oh boys.
MR. SPEAKER:
He was going through the
papers of the Minister of Transportation and Works.
I'd ask
you to take your seat, please.
I
apologize.
Please
ask the Member to continue.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, just –
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you –
MR. JOYCE:
– (inaudible) for
clarification on that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If you have a point of order,
I'll listen to it; otherwise, I don't want to hear from you.
MR. JOYCE:
I don't know, I guess it's a
point of order to what you just said.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transportation, I was getting the money for the shoes
for kids in Africa which he told me to get the envelope out of his desk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Regardless, I'm unable to
tell that from this view. I saw you going through somebody else's papers. I'd
ask you to stay at your desk.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So, as I
was saying, while land is important, and obviously land is key to any
agricultural policy and plan that the government has, it's going to take more
than clearing of land and access of land to get to where we need to get in this
province when it comes to food self-sufficiency, sustainability and food safety,
which are major issues that we have to deal with when we're talking about
agriculture.
I know
that the issue of having to get a permit to cut wood when clearing land has been
an outstanding issue with farmers and they've been decades bringing up this
issue. It's good that, finally, government has listened but when the government
talks about, in their Way Forward document, doubling the province's food
self-sufficiency to at least 20 per cent by 2022, and achieving an additional
500 person-years of employment, we're going to have more than just this kind of
amendment. We're going to need more than just this kind of amendment to get to
that point.
When the
minister said that government is looking at agriculture with fresh eyes and here
are the fresh eyes, I sat up and said okay, is he going to say something new,
and all he talked about was land. As I said, it's going to take much, much more
than just making land available. Government needs to be into working with the
agricultural industry in a way that resources are being put in because it's
going to take more than land. There has to be resources put in to really get us
to where we need to get in our industry.
The
sector plan does include a comprehensive regulatory review of all legislation
related to the agriculture sector. I know that, but how long are we going to
have to wait when it comes to looking at modernized legislation with regard to
food self-sufficiency, sustainability, food safety, farm registration, the
movement of farm equipment on highways, animal welfare, stewardship of the land
base, enhanced protection for the province's honeybee population? There are so
many issues that are affecting the agricultural industry right now and all
government seems to be doing anything about is the land issue.
I've
raised this many times here in the House, sometimes in response to Ministerial
Statements around the whole thing of land. When the minister comes out with a
statement that has to do with land, I raise the issue – and I'm doing it again
today – that it is not enough to just make land available. There is so much more
and the agricultural industry is waiting, waiting for new legislation, but also
waiting for plans that are concrete and that do involve government putting
resources into the industry to help move things along.
Government has no problem putting money into other industries such as oil and
gas, such as cannabis, no problem whatsoever; but, one of our most important
industries, our agricultural industry, if we're going to get anywhere to the
figure that he's talking about in the plan with regard to food security, it
won't happen magically just because there's more land. That's not the way it's
going to happen.
Fine,
I'm very happy to vote for this bill. Obviously, it's good that farmers don't
have to get permits now to cut wood on land that they are clearing. That's fine,
and I'm definitely going to vote for it. But I'm expecting more from this
government when it comes to legislation with regard to the agricultural
industry. It is interesting that the amendment is to the
Forestry Act but, as the minister
himself said, really, it's all about the agricultural industry in terms of the
effect on farmers of this change.
I'll
leave my comments at that, Mr. Speaker, and look forward seeing this bill voted
on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the bill?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a couple of minutes to speak to Bill 51, An Act to Amend the
Forestry Act. I will be supporting the bill, Mr. Speaker.
It's
interesting because if somebody were to tune in and listen to the debate, and
you're hearing the minister talk about the renaissance – I believe he said we
have a renaissance in our province. I found it quite entertaining because,
really, what we're talking about here is simply saying that if you're a farmer
and you have Crown land on your farm that's wooded and you want to clear trees,
you can go ahead and clear the trees. You don't need to get a permit and you
don't need to pay royalties on the wood and so on which is what you would have
to do.
If you
had a farm today, you wanted to expand your farmland, there was trees, you cut
it down, you got to go to the Forestry office, get a permit, and like I say you
got to pay some sort of a fee or royalty on the wood. Now you won't have to do
that, providing that you're going to use the wood for your own purposes. So you
could take the wood, you could saw it up and make a fence or something to go
around your farm, you could build a new barn or you could do something like
that. You can't sell the wood, you can't barter the wood, you can't give the
wood away to some senior citizens who live down the road – not allowed to do
that without permits.
But, you
could take the wood and make mulch or something and wood chips or something to
put in the barn with the pigs and the horses and the cows or whatever else
animals you have and, like I said, you could use the wood to help build a barn,
a fence and that type of thing without a permit. That's actually the substance
of the bill.
So
obviously, anything that we can do to help farmers and that, and if this is an
additional burden, an additional cost that they don't have to endure and it's a
bit of red tape that's being reduced, then I can't see any reason why every
Member of this House wouldn't support it, and I'm sure we do, including this
Member here.
So thank
you, Mr. Speaker, that's all I have to say.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
If the
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources speaks now, he will close
debate on second reading.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thanks very, very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It was
certainly helpful to receive some of the comments from the Members regarding the
future of agriculture, and it was fulfilling to hear their support for this
particular amendment to the Forestry Act.
There
are a couple of comments that I would like to make, however. There's
occasionally somewhat of a disbelief or a mocking tone that's produced when we
do pronounce that agriculture is on the move, that we are growing our food by
growing our agriculture. There's somewhat of a dismissive approach that's taken
because it's almost as if their place in this is being displaced.
The good
news, and it is clearly a great news story, there is evidence that agriculture
has been on decline, significant evidence. Statistics Canada tells us that
agriculture has been on the decline in Newfoundland and Labrador. Statistics
Canada is the source that we use when we describe that there were 3,400 farms in
Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949 and, by 2015, there was 530 farms. It is
Statistics Canada that tells us that we were 100 per cent food self-sufficient
in 1949, but today we are just 10 per cent food self-sufficient. It is
Statistics Canada that tells us that in the last five years from 2011 to 2015 we
dropped 20 per cent of our farms – over 100 farms closed. It is Statistics
Canada that tells us that these trends are real, and it will be Statistics
Canada that tells us that now, as a result of
The Way Forward on agriculture, our specific initiatives to grow
agriculture, that trend will change, and change for the better, Mr. Speaker.
I
recognize it is sometimes difficult for people to hear, that have a vested
interest in sowing misery, not sowing seeds, that this is happening. It is
difficult for some people to hear that it did not occur under their watch, but
it's occurring under ours. It is difficult for some to accept that there is a
renaissance in agriculture that's happening, and an appreciation for our
farmers.
It is
regrettable that far too many children thought that milk came from the carton –
the source of milk was from a carton, a source of beef was from a Styrofoam
tray, and the source of eggs was from a cardboard carton. Well, through
Agriculture in the Classroom, Mr. Speaker, we are making sure that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, our children, our future farmers, they are very much
aware that food comes from the farm.
So while
it was mocking to a certain degree, and I enjoyed the back and forth that
everyone knows that food is on the tip of everyone's tongue three times a day,
the truth is, yes, people eat food, but they do sometimes take farmers and where
the food comes from for granted. That's the point here. We're reversing that;
we're changing that.
It has
also been said that nothing new is happening in agriculture. That really just
it's all about the land and, for some reason, our government is preoccupied by
land. I heard the hon. Member from the New Democratic Party say this
preoccupation with land is a singular issue, it should really stop and we need
to branch out into other things and recognize that it's not just about land.
Well, it is about land. It is a key component that land base that farmers need –
it it's intuitive for everyone, every reasonable person to understand that
farms, farming, food and land are very synonymous.
Mr.
Speaker, to make the point or to make the statement that it's just about land,
that our initiatives are just about land and there's no plan, we launched a very
specific plan through The Way Forward
on agriculture: our agricultural sector plan. One of those components to that
plan is post-secondary education in farming, in agriculture. Not only at the
college level, not only the public college level, our College of the North
Atlantic but Memorial University of Newfoundland has embraced agriculture and
Memorial University of Newfoundland, particularly Grenfell Campus, they are the
first to say there's a renaissance in agriculture.
They are
the first to say that they did not offer agriculture programs before but now
they are. Not only do they have master's students, they have research activity
underway, but they are exploring now a Ph.D program at Grenfell Campus of
Memorial University in agriculture.
With all
due respect to those who say it's same old same old, status quo, nothing new
here, nothing here to see, get out and spend some time at a farm, at all of our
farms; spend some time in our university; spend some time at our college
campuses; spend some time at the Pynn's Brook research centre; spend some time
at the Wooddale Centre for forestry and agriculture innovation; spend some time
in a classroom at our Agriculture in the Classroom program; spend some time with
the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture who co-chaired the plan
that some Members say doesn't exist.
Spend
some time with those who are putting their backs into growing our agriculture;
spend some time with our new farmers like Robbie Coles in Reidville who has now
started a brand new fruit and vegetable farm in the Reidville area, thanks to
our pilot project that this government started to get farm-ready land available
to new farmers. Robbie Coles and his spouse are very experienced in farming, but
they did not have a chance to get access. They did not have a chance to become
their own farmers.
A new
initiative of this government – of this government – put Robbie Coles and his
spouse and his family on a working farm. They are doing fantastic work. There
are other examples. I was at the annual general meeting of the Federation of
Agriculture just a few short weeks ago where we introduced yet another new
farmer who applied for, was accepted and was successful in that pilot program.
We're going to expand that.
Mr.
Speaker, it was said that there is not a renaissance, it's a chuckle, ha ha ha
ha, chuckle – the minister says there's renaissance going on about agriculture.
Go down to the St. John's Farmers' Market or the Clarenville Farmers' Market, go
to the community gardens that are growing up in communities all throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador and then say that what you're doing is really, really
not special.
They
should never say that. There is a new wave afoot; there is a new energy to
farming. The energy of our farmers has always been there, it's just not been
recognized from outside of the farm community. It's always been there. They are
growing the number of farms that are in our province. They are growing their own
production in our province because of the programs that are available to them. I
say, Mr. Speaker, that when you look at all of the things that are growing here
in Newfoundland and Labrador, farming is definitely one of them.
Now, the
Member for Mount Pearl North gave witness to why nothing ever happened under the
PCs, because he took this issue and he said, well, it's complicated, you know,
they didn't answer this question, and until they answer that question they
shouldn't provide a solution over here. Well, what I heard the hon. Member say,
and I appreciate it very much, is he said sawlogs must be used for forestry.
That's what the hon. Member said.
He said
sawlogs must be used for forestry, so that in large measure is exactly what I
said we would accomplish. We would consult about how, when it comes to these
amendments, this particular amendment, we have as a rule, commercial activity is
governed under commercial regulation; non-commercial activity should be governed
under separate regimes.
We said
that we recognize there's no issue here. The only way to enforce and control as
to where timber is going and what its purpose is, is if the current holder of
the property, those who are in possession, clear possession of logs, of timber,
of wood, has to be able to show that they are a rightful owner of that wood.
Now you
can imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you were to take wood from a Crown land lease and
gift it right now under the current system, there is no provision in place, and
it has to be brought in place through regulation, to be able to show that
evidence, that proof. That's where we say we will get to this problem, we will
get a solution to this, but we will not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. So now the hon. Member has provided us with consultation, that it's his
view that sawlogs must be used for forestry, I take that, and we'll call that
for here on in, the Lester lesson.
So of
the 64,000 hectares, he says that land has always been there. He's right. That
land, that 64,000 hectares, not acres as the Member said – Hansard might want to
correct that, or he might want to try to correct
Hansard – but it's not 64,000 acres; it's 64,000 hectares, 2.2 plus
acres per hectare.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that land has, obviously, always been there but it has not always,
obviously, been used. Why has it not always been used? It's because – unlike
what the hon. Member tried to suggest. It's not because of simple economics –
it's sometimes because of economics, but it hasn't been used in large measure
because it was used for other purposes. It was not designated as agriculture in
some – a significant portion of the 64,000 hectares were under the control of
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as it were for (inaudible).
That was
transferred – Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. This is the work the government did
to try to free up that land. It was designated exclusively for one purpose, and
it was that one purpose – it was not agriculture. It was used for forestry and
it was acceptable. It was really good land for agriculture.
It was
good land for forestry, too, but there was better land for forestry so we
swapped. That's the thing, that's why the hon. Member just doesn't get it. It
was not just there forever, since time immemorial, since God created the earth.
It was – notwithstanding plate tectonics, but it was.
The
thing here is it was regulated for a different – much of the land was used for a
different purpose, and we made sure it was used for the purpose of, or available
to the purpose of agriculture. So that's one of the core issues that came
forward there. Now, it was also said there has been no increasing in funding,
and he would argue that the answer to agriculture is to increase funding.
The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North was on his feet not long ago – and
Hansard will record. The hon. Member
said the infusion of new entrants and their use of government funding could
cripple incumbent existing farmers. That's what the position of the Member for
Mount Pearl North was: Be cautious, because getting all these new farmers into
farming – well, you know what that could do? They could take over. They could
take all this government money and they could swamp and sink existing farmers.
Hansard
has recorded that.
MR. LESTER:
That's true.
MR. BYRNE:
That is ridiculous. That is
absolutely ridiculous.
When you
grow 10 per cent of your food in this province – we import 90 per cent. He has
just said again, Mr. Speaker: It's true, what he said is true.
Think
this through. We grow 10 per cent of our food. We import 90 per cent. Getting
more farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the Member for Mount
Pearl North, will destroy existing farmers. Whoa. Well, well, well, well, well.
MR. LESTER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BYRNE:
And he repeats it again from
the other side, that his position remains steadfast. That the answer is, in
Newfoundland and Labrador, keep it up, status quo, don't grow the number of
farmers we have, don't grow or increase the amount of food we have, unless of
course it's only the existing farmers that would do so. That is (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll ask you to
make sure there's (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me a second.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North, you have a point of order?
MR. LESTER:
Yes. What the minister is
conveying is totally disingenuous –
MR. SPEAKER:
Sir, are you rising –
MR. LESTER:
– and it hurts my character
for him to be saying that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me, Sir, are you
rising on a point of order? If not, I'd ask you take your seat.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources to continue.
MR. BYRNE:
If a characterization of the
Member's character is because of what he's said, I guess I will use what he said
and he can determine what his own character is. Because I use this as a matter
of discussion, is he repeats again that he is concerned, he is very concerned
that increasing the number of farmers in our province could have a detrimental
effect on existing farmers. Mr. Speaker, he is going to have to reconcile that
point of view with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because that is not
how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel.
When we
grow just 10 per cent of our food and we import 90 per cent, there seems to be a
reasonable level of capacity for new entrants here. It is now, as a result of
the debate on the floor of the House of Assembly, on this particular date we
will recognize from this point forward that the position of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and the PC caucus is, as
articulated by its agriculture critic, it is unwise to increase the number of
farmers in our province. That is not a very tenable position to be able to take
to the public, and he will have to answer to this from this point forward.
I can
recognize that we have a responsibility to nurture and protect and support our
incumbent farmers, our existing farmers. That's why this government negotiated
successfully a $36 million Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador agricultural
partnership. That is why we supply incumbent farmers with seedlings – we'll grow
over 2 million seedlings. Just incredible uptake to this, incredible uptake. It
reduces the risk for farmers. It lowers their cost. It increases their growing
season.
By using
the 20-plus to 30-plus greenhouses that are established in Wooddale that use –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Thirty-four.
MR. BYRNE:
Thirty-four greenhouses that
were established in Wooddale that now have the capacity to be able to grow
seedlings. Now we extend their growing season, we limit the risk. We are
supporting our existing farmers, Mr. Speaker.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture says to us, and we hear them
and we agree with them, we support them, they tell us: grow your farmers. Grow
your number of farmers. Support your incumbent, your existing farmers, but
increase the number of farmers. Reverse the trend that Statistics Canada tells
us has been underway in Newfoundland and Labrador for far too long, and that's
why, Mr. Speaker, we're rising to the challenge. We are doing what the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture tells us is so important;
what the people of our province tells us is so important.
We're
growing an apiculture industry. Our honey industry is growing, our cranberries
and our root crops. We're growing our beef through introduction of preferred
species, of preferred stock. We're growing a whole range of new, but supporting
new entrants that makes sense.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Your
time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that Bill 51 be
now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act. (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1. I don't know if it's necessary to read the
motion in.
MR. SPEAKER:
I look to the Clerk for
direction.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, for the purposes of
Hansard, I'll read the motion in:
“WHEREAS
subsection 6(3) of the Independent
Appointments Commission Act provides that the Independent Appointments
Commission shall consist of a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7 members appointed
by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;
AND
WHEREAS there are currently 5 members of the Independent Appointments
Commission;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons be appointed members of the
Independent Appointments Commission: Earl Ludlow, Cathy Duke.”
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand today and speak to these two individuals who I'm sure we will
receive unanimous consent, or at least I hope we receive unanimous consent of
the House for the appointments of these two individuals.
Mr.
Speaker, the IAC was our inaugural legislation as a government in 2016. It does
provide the most accessible appointments process for agencies, boards and
commissions, I believe, in the country. It's an independent, non-partisan body
that's responsible to apply a merit-based process to recommend qualified
individuals for appointment.
In
December, we made amendments to the legislation to move the number of people on
the IAC from five to seven. They manage a significant workload; it's on a
volunteer basis. The chair of the IAC had indicated to us they need additional
help in order to get through the large number of appointments that are required
and the large number of applications made. So, increasing the number allows the
commissioners to improve their ability to efficiently deal with multiple
recommendation requests. It also allows them to have two processes ongoing at
the same time instead of being simply bound by one.
When we
made the changes, we stipulated that all future appointments to the IAC,
including the two individuals that are being appointed today, would go through
the merit-based process conducted by the IAC. So the two candidates that we have
today, Mr. Speaker, I believe have impeccable qualifications. We'll talk about
that to some degree in a moment. I'd like to provide some details on these
candidates so that all Members will be clear why we are recommending these
highly qualified individuals.
Cathy
Duke has been CEO of Destination St. John's for the last seven years. In this
role, Ms. Duke directs sales and marketing efforts in attracting meetings and
conventions, leisure travel, and sport and tourism to our destination. Before
this, she spent four years in the public service. She was deputy minister in the
former departments of tourism, culture and recreation, and then innovation,
trade and rural development.
Her
private sector experience includes serving as president of Terra Nova Golf
Resort and Clarenville Inn, as well as vice-president of Coastal Associates and
Consultants Limited. Her past appointments include executive director of
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, executive director of the Economic
Recovery Commission, account manager with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency.
Her
current board appointments include a board member of Tourism Industry
Association of Canada, executive member of the Destination Marketing Association
of Canada, board member of the St. John's Sports and Entertainment, member of
Memorial University Board of Regents and Memorial University Faculty of Business
Advisory Board and vice-president of the Stella Burry Foundation.
Ms. Duke
holds a Bachelor of Social Work, as well as a Master of Business Administration
and she acquired her ICD.D designation in 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, the second candidate is Mr. Earl Ludlow. He recently retired from his
roles as executive vice-president, Eastern Canadian and Caribbean Operations and
operational advisor to the president and CEO of Fortis Inc. His career with
Fortis spanned almost 40 years. Mr. Ludlow has extensive career experience as a
community volunteer. He served two terms on Memorial University's Board of
Regents, and two terms on the honourary lieutenant colonel of the Royal
Newfoundland and Labrador Regiment, 1st Battalion.
He is a
member of the Professional Engineers & Geoscientists Newfoundland & Labrador and
he holds the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. He's also been inducted into
the Atlantic provinces CEO Business Hall of Fame by
Atlantic Business Magazine.
He was
designated as the Humanitarian of the Year by the Canadian Red Cross in 2010,
and is a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. He earned his Bachelor
of Engineering, electrical, as well as a Master of Business Administration from
Memorial University.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe that all Members will agree that these candidates are more
than qualified for the roles that we are recommending them for. I look forward
to continued success with the Independent Appointments Commission as they ensure
that positions within our agencies, boards and commissions are filled by
qualified candidates such as these two individuals today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further speakers to the
motion?
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise to speak to this motion dealing with the
Independent Appointments Commission Act. It was legislation reported
as a mirror-based assessment process that was introduced by this current
administration, as I said, in 2016 to look at mirror-based appointments based on
various levels of organizations and boards throughout the province. We've had an
amendment just a little while ago, I think, related particularly to this. This
motion would address this and deal with it.
One of
the issues we had when it was originally brought about was the fact that, at the
end of the day, there was a board set up that did an analysis based on merit,
based on that there were recommendations, I believe, made to Lieutenant-Governor
in Council and sometimes it would be three people. We never know if that
recommendation is accepted or not, or if it's ever rejected was one of the
issues we had with it. We certainly support a merit-based system which is fully
transparent and fully open and an understanding and all details are made
available to the public.
This
particular motion today looks at expanding the membership of the commission for
independent appointments, consisting of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven
members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the
House of Assembly. That's why we're here today. There are currently five
members, I understand, in Independent Appointments Commission, and this
resolution today is looking for approval here in the House to appoint two
additional members to the Independent Appointments Commission.
On a
professional basis, I've interacted with these folks a little bit; do not know
personally. The minister had indicated then – we weren't given a CV or résumé,
but he did go through some of the experiences and somewhat expertise and
involvement of these two individuals. From my point of view, I guess our point
on this side, we see no reason not to certainly appoint these individuals. Seems
like they've been involved in their community, they've held various positions in
organizations and seem would have the qualities and expertise to assist in the
Independent Appointments Commission.
So we'd
certainly have no reason not to support these individuals as they come forward.
Again, we just mentioned the fact that, when it was brought in in 2016, this was
supposed to be a non-biased, merit-based system. Again, it would be nice to see,
at the end of the day, what recommendations are made and if any of the
recommendations that flow up to Lieutenant-Governor in Council are not accepted,
the public should certainly be made aware of that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
speakers to the motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to speak to the motion, the resolution supporting both Earl Ludlow and
Cathy Duke to serve on the Independent Appointments Commission.
These
are two highly professional and highly qualified and certainly, based on merit,
would meet the criteria to sit on the Independent Appointments Commission to
make decisions and recommendations on our tier-one agency, boards and
commissions of government, highlighting that someone of the calibre of Earl
Ludlow, who I've had the privilege of working with Earl in his capacity of
vice-chair of The Rooms Corporation, who has been presenting a very long-term
view and vision coming from somebody who has such experience working with
Fortis, and highlighting that from an audit and risk point of view or taking
that viewpoint of having international experience and how we can use that in
terms of governance and that structure and to be able to provide that level of
advice and that accountability.
Earl
Ludlow as a recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also his
capacity around the Honour 100 and the
regimental aspect; very interested in history, very interested in our place here
in our province. Earl comes from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes
to growing up on Fogo Island. It's certainly nice to have somebody from a rural
community who has such experience internationally and to be able to take all of
that talent to the Independent Appointments Commission and give back after
serving such a long, esteemed career.
Cathy
Duke, who I've had the pleasure of working with in her capacity as the executive
director of Destination St. John's. Recently, we partnered with the City of St.
John's to do a hub and spoke model when it comes to how we can do better
wayfinding in the city for signage and digital signage and getting people to
navigate to our key attractions and areas.
Cathy
Duke has been working with her team to provide a very broad vision and to help
grow the industry. She's been doing it for quite some time in her former
capacity as a Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, a former
department; in her role as executive director of Hospitality Newfoundland and
Labrador and in her current capacity. She has great qualifications and proven
herself as a leader in the industry, both in private sector and representative
of industry associations, but also having accreditation for corporate directors
as well is something that shows her education, her criteria. Having somebody of
that calibre will serve us all well when it comes to the recommendations that
will be put forward of our agencies, boards and commissions of government.
I want
to highlight my personal experiences that I've had in the capacity of Minister
of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation of working with these two
individuals and others, that they have been highly professional, well recognized
and highlighting how they work with others throughout this province and the
great contributions they made in their respective sectors and that they can in
their capacity give back, because they have such broad experience. Whether it's
from an education level of serving on the Board of Regents at Memorial
University or others, they would be able to provide a very non-biased view when
it comes to ensuring that members who are putting their names forward, who want
to volunteer and make sure that we have the best people for our agencies, boards
and commissions of government.
So, I'm
more than happy, Mr. Speaker, to support the resolution of Earl Ludlow and Cathy
Duke here in terms of these positions, because it's important. The people who
have already been placed on the Independent Appointments Commission, they have
served extremely well. People like Clyde Wells, Zita Cobb and others, but some
of their memberships are expiring and it's important that we have members like
Earl and Cathy to come forward. They have a high level of experience, a high
level of qualification and gave generations of dedication to Newfoundland and
Labrador, and you certainly need that for this type of committee and
organization.
I want
to say from a qualifications point of view, these would have people that would
have gone through a process that would have been vetted. It truly is a
merit-based process. I hope there is unanimous support here in this House for
both of these members to serve in this capacity because they will serve
Newfoundland and Labrador quite well, to be in that independent role and to have
such authority to be able to make those recommendations to each of the agencies,
boards and commissions that need to be filled on an ongoing basis. We certainly
need volunteers to serve in that capacity that have the qualifications and the
criteria to ensure that each of these entities are performing to the best of
their capacity.
So with
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
Members' speaking to the motion?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I can't
help but sharing with you that I've got this song running through my head by the
amazing (inaudible) Alanis Morissette who is a multi JUNO Award winner, singer,
songwriter, Canadian, and also she's won a number of Grammy's, and that song is:
isn't it Ironic. Isn't it ironic to hear the Minister of TCII stand up and speak
about the Independent Appointments Commission when we see the bit of a disaster
in the hiring of someone at The Rooms without going through the Independent
Appointments Commission?
After
that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say thank you to the current five people who sit
on the Independent Appointments –
MR. MITCHELMORE:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, on a point of order.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The Independent Appointments
Commission has a role to fill CEO level positions and board members. It does not
fill –
MR. SPEAKER:
Sir, do you have a point of
order?
MR. MITCHELMORE:
– assistant deputy minister executive level positions. So I have to clarify for
the record what the Member opposite said is not factual.
MR. SPEAKER:
I require a point of order.
Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Take your seat please.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I do
recommend listening to the amazing –
MR. KING:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Here we go.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista, on a point of order.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I would claim
under Standing Order 48, relevancy. The comments made by the Member for St.
John's Centre were not relevant to the debate. It was nothing more than an
attack on the minister.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
No, there's no point of
order.
I would
consider it relevant somewhat, but anyway let's continue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Let's continue, please.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
And I'm
going to try and heal myself from the slings and arrows of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I would again
very much recommend the work by the amazing Alanis Morissette; however, the five
people have worked so incredibly hard on the Independent Appointments
Commission. There were so many positions that needed to be filled. There were
probably close to a hundred, or maybe even more than a hundred, and I'm not so
sure that these five folks, who are so busy in their own right – and
these are volunteer positions they're holding – had any idea what they were in
for. I've had the opportunity to speak to a few of them over the year and to
thank them for their service. Because it was a yeoman service for sure, how hard
they worked, how much work they had to do. And fine jobs that they have done.
The new folks who are going to be appointed, I'd like to
thank them, too, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for
stepping up. I don't know if they actually went through the Independent
Appointments Commission to be able to be appointed on the Independent
Appointments Commission. I'm not quite sure how that worked, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't, but I would like to say thank you,
welcome and thank you to them, again, for being willing to do this work.
Every
now and then I go on the page of the Independent Appointments Commission to see
what kinds of positions are needing to be filled. It looks like the five members
who are on the commission right now have, again, done such an incredible job,
have worked so hard, as have the Public Service Commission, so I'd like to thank
those folks for doing that work.
I'd also
like to say once again, Mr. Speaker, I believe that government really missed the
mark by not mandating a gender lens in the legislation for the Independent
Appointments Commission. It was an opportunity to really show their commitment
in a progressive way to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that there is a lot of work to address and
redress the imbalance in a lot of our commissions and boards and agencies. They
have done some great appointments, absolutely, and again with so little
resources and having to work so hard.
I wish
the new appointees well, Cathy Duke and Earl Ludlow. I do not know either of
them personally but their résumés are very impressive. Again, they're probably
very busy people as well, who are agreeing to do this because of their love and
their care for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, just like the other
members who are on the Independent Appointments Commission. I wish them luck,
and anybody who's watching, I encourage people all over the province to continue
to go to the website for the IAC to see what positions are being filled. It's
great when people step up to say I will serve the people of my province because
I care about my province.
So we
need more people, we need more people from all over the province, we need more
people with all kinds of different backgrounds, younger people, older people,
straight and queer and wealthy and not-so-wealthy, and we need a lot of people
to serve on our agency, boards and commissions. Some of them are paid positions,
some are not, and the more diversity we have in these positions, the better
chance we have of making really fulsome decisions that reflect the reality of
the lives of the people of our province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a couple of minutes. First of all, I just wanted to say that in
terms of the two people who are being appointed, Ms. Duke and Mr. Ludlow, I
don't know either of them personally – well, I can't say I don't know them
personally. I've spoken to them in the past. If I ran into them, I could say
hello, but I don't know them – we're not good friends or anything like that, per
se. But I do know of them professionally. I know of both of their résumés
through my time even prior to being part of government. And I think they're both
very qualified individuals. So I have no problem whatsoever in supporting both
of those individuals.
As had
been said, they will now be part of the Independent Appointments Commission.
Without rehashing debate that occurred in the past when it was created, just for
the record, I still have the same concern about the fact that this commission
can recommend people for a position and the minister can just simply take the
three names and say, no, I don't want either one of them. I don't know if that's
ever happened. I don't know if it's happened or not. Maybe it hasn't. We
never know. I think if I was a member of the IAC and I saw that happen, I would
be resigning from that commission pretty quickly if I thought that I was
recommending names and then they were just being thrown out to give it to
somebody else.
So I got a feeling it's probably not happening, to be
honest with you. I feel like it's not. But I do think that is a loophole that
could possibly be closed and, at the very least, if names are presented and they
don't accept any of them, I think we should know in the House that there were
names put forward and they were all rejected for some reason. Not saying it's
ever happened, but I just think it would be a way to close it up.
The only other thing I would say is that there are people
who would say, in the general public – because I've heard these comments; I'm
sure we all have before – that when it comes to deputy ministers, assistant
deputy ministers and so on, there are a lot of people out there that feel those
people should also be appointed based on a merit system and not just appointed
because of any affiliation that they may have politically and so on. Because
there have been times when we've seen it where people have been appointed who
have had affiliation, and when it's been raised in the House first thing you
hear is well, this is a deputy minister or an ADM, so the Independent
Appointments Commission doesn't apply in this case, which is true. It doesn't
apply, but that doesn't mean that the public likes the fact that because of what
those positions are that you can just go ahead and appoint former candidates or
party supporters and so on. So I just put that out there as part of the
discussion because I hear it from people, and I'm sure we've all heard it in the
past.
The other thing I've heard from people in the past that I
would just put out there is the fact that we still have a system whereby departments can hire people – they call
them emergency hires – for less than 13 weeks. A department can hire people
without going through the Public Service Commission, and sometimes they're hired
and then they're extended and then they're extended again, and it was meant for
emergency situations, I think that was the intent.
But
there are a lot of people, I've heard from people, employees here in the
government, who have said that there was someone who got hired through the back
door, they'd go in as a 10-weeker or a 13-weeker and then they'd get extended
and then a job would come up they'd apply for it, they'd have the inside track,
get hired, and then perhaps after that surpassed an employee who was there for a
significant period of time. I guess that's why I heard it, because there was a
person said I worked with the government for X number of years and somebody's
buddy gets hired through the back door as an emergency hire, they get extended,
then the job comes up, they apply internally, they get it, and next thing you
know it, I'm reporting to that person.
So, this
is another loophole, I suppose, that I've had a couple of people actually
contact me about, that they would like to see closed; that emergency hires
should be for emergency hires only and not as a means to get your buddy in
through the back door to apply for government jobs. They should all be done
merit-based, period. It should go through the Public Service Commission.
So
that's the only other comment I would make. I know it's not really relevant, but
I think it ties into the whole aspect of appointments in government and
positions in government. But again, I will support these two individuals. I
think they're quality people, I think they'll do a good job, and I also offer my
thanks, as did the Member before me, to the five individuals who have done great
work, I believe, since they were appointed a couple of years ago, and I'm sure
there will be more great work to continue.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to rise today to speak in support, of course, of two new members of the
Independent Appointments Commission. I would like to, first of all, say thank
you to those Independent Appointments Commission members that have been doing
incredible work for this province. Most people will know some, if not all of the
names here: Hon. Clyde Wells, former chief justice, former premier of this
province; Shannie Duff, former mayor of St. John's; Zita Cobb, an outstanding
entrepreneur responsible for the Fogo Island Inn and the redevelopment of Fogo
Island; Philip Earle, he's with Air Borealis and, of course, vice-president of
that organization and has been doing a tremendous amount of work and good in
Labrador; Derek Young, a Ford franchise owner, four locations and he gives his
time as well, Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Western Regional Memorial
Hospital.
Five
outstanding Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have contributed greatly to
this province in their own right and now as members of the Independent
Appointments Commission.
Mr.
Speaker, this government put in place the Independent Appointments Commission
and it's a very valuable and a very important process now for getting under the
boards of agencies, boards and commissions. I will say, it took politics out of
the appointments process. Now, anyone at all in the province can go on the
website, can apply for any of the boards in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to be considered for outstanding opportunities and to make
contributions to their community, to their province.
I thank
people who go to the website and put – I can tell you, and I'll use one example,
the Oil and Gas council is a council that helps with the development of oil and
gas in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We set that up a couple of
years ago, Mr. Speaker. They've been very, very active in developing the plan
for growth and development in the oil industry, Mr. Speaker, and they've done
incredible work, incredible leaders, incredible members of our community and
they were all chosen to the Independent Appointments Commission.
I
encourage everyone in this province to go to the website and to make themselves
available for those positions. It's a merit-based process and just addressing
one of the comments that was made earlier about gender equity. I always seek to
have parity onboard. I think it is incredibility important. As a business
leader, I sat on many, many boards, Mr. Speaker, and I think it does lend
balance of perspectives on boards of directors. So I do support ensuring as many
females as possible are on boards of directors and, of course, the merit-based
process.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say that I know both of these individuals, outstanding
contributors to our communities. I won't go through their résumés because both
of them have contributed greatly, not only to their work life, Mr. Speaker, but
also through many, many boards that they have been on over time in this
province, both volunteer boards of directors in the community, I know in health
care and in the Red Cross and other community activities they've done, because
I've been on some of these boards with these individuals. They do an awful lot
of work in our community and I'm grateful for the efforts they have done on
behalf of our community.
They're
both very knowledgeable and learned individuals that will give a tremendous
amount to the Independent Appointments Commission. Again, that now makes seven
people on the Independent Appointments Commission. I think that will be helpful,
as there are so many appointments that are done through the process.
I will
point out, Mr. Speaker, that I know at least one of them, and perhaps both, have
done the Institute of Corporate Directors program. I too have done that program.
For the House and for the people of the province, it's a globally recognized
director program within Canada. It's globally recognized because it does
contribute to director organizations in the country.
They
develop, inform, prepare ethical and connected courageous engaged leaders that
come together. This is a very robust education program, I can tell you, I've
been through it and taken the exams. It's a very robust program. I did mine
through the University of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, but I know many here go through
– now it's offered at Memorial University. I think there's one coming up I think
next fall. So anybody who's interested in doing the Institute of Corporate
Directors program I would encourage it. It's coming up through Memorial
University next fall, and then you become an accredited director and can
contribute to organizations going forward.
You have
ongoing education and training, you learn from other directors in the course of
your business. It is not-for-profit as well for-profit organizations as well as
Crown corporations. I do encourage people to consider that program because it
does give you the learnings, gives you the education and gives you the
connections so that you can talk to other directors about some of the evolving,
emerging issues that boards of directors are facing.
So, Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I will take my seat. I think this is a very positive
thing for the province, I think it's very positive that we have been able to
attract incredibly strong, educated, informed individuals to the commission and
that, therefore, is attracting very credible, very knowledgeable people to the
boards and commissions around our province.
I thank
them for their commitment, I thank them for stepping up to assist the province,
and with that I'll take my seat.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat speaks now he
will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the comments by Members of the House who contributed to this
discussion.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous amount of time and
dedication that's put into the IAC by the existing five members. I know that
I've spoken on a number of occasions to the Chair as we resolved issues that the
IAC felt they were facing and tried to ensure that it ran as smoothly as
possible.
I
understand the dedication that is required on this volunteer board. We have to
remember that these two new individuals, in addition to the five individuals
that are serving on the board, do so on a volunteer basis. It is a considerable
and very, very valuable contribution to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So I wanted to recognize that.
There
was a point made by Deputy Government House Leader, as well as the Member for
St. John's Centre, on trying to get more women applying for boards and appointed
through the IAC process. To date, we've had approximately 2,000 applications to
the IAC for various appointments, and of those roughly 2,000 applications, Mr.
Speaker, 42 per cent of the people who've applied are female.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
So that's impressive. We'd
like to see it at 50 per cent, obviously, but it's up to the individuals to
apply; but 42 per cent of those individuals who've applied to the IAC for
appointment are female.
Here's
the point, Mr. Speaker, that I think is worth repeating, because of the 42 per
cent of the roughly 2,000 applications that were submitted, we've had 507
appointments by this volunteer board – 507 appointments. So each appointment
that they look at, Mr. Speaker, they have to pour through many applications to
narrow it down to the people they are going to recommend to government. So 507
appointments by this five-member volunteer board.
Mr.
Speaker, of those 507, 238 were female. That's 47 per cent. So even though we've
only had 42 per cent applications by females, we've had 47 per cent of the
positions filled were filled by females.
So, I
really think, Mr. Speaker, that that deserves to be recognized in terms of both
the IAC and the work they do in ensuring that we have gender balance in these
appointments, but also to the fact that this system is working. It is working,
and we are getting the best qualified people being appointed to these agencies,
boards and commissions; the very best people being appointed to these agencies,
boards and commissions to provide a service to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
So with
that, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank each individual who's contributed to
this discussion. I want to congratulate, again, Cathy Duke and Earl Ludlow, two
very fine individuals, very credible and capable individuals, who I know will
make a valuable contribution to the IAC.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Before I
propose the question, I'd ask the minister if he may, please – I need a seconder
for the motion.
MR. OSBORNE:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
My very
learned colleague, my former colleague, still a colleague, the Clerk of the
House of Assembly had whispered in my ear we needed a seconder, and the Deputy
Government House Leader jumped to my aid and said she wanted to second this
because of the importance of this paper.
So the
paper is seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Is the
House ready for the question?
All
those in favour of Motion 1, please signify by saying 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, this House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is carried,
despite some nays.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, the 19th day of March at 1:30
o'clock.
Thank
you very much.
On motion, the House at its rising
adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.