April 1, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 61
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I would
like to welcome all the Members back for another week in the House of Assembly.
Unfortunately, I'd like to pass on some very sad news to my colleagues in this
room. You may have heard through the news that the Speaker of Nunavut, the hon.
Joe Enook, died Friday night, early Saturday morning, and for those of you
who've had the chance to work with him – I know I certainly have enjoyed that
opportunity. Many of my colleagues on the floor here have also, at various
parliamentary meetings. He recently participated with us in Happy Valley-Goose
Bay. I tell you, Nunavut has lost a great son, our province has lost a great
friend.
So, on
behalf of the Legislature, I do extend condolences to his family, his friends
and all the people of Nunavut, and, frankly, all those who've worked with him.
In the
Speaker's gallery today – and, I'm sorry, the hon. the Deputy Speaker and the
Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay will also be speaking about Mr. Enook in his
statement.
On a
happier occasion, I would like to recognize some great friends and some special
guests in the Speaker's gallery today. We have with us the World Special
Olympics Bronze Medallist, Mr. Peter Hynes of Placentia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Joining Mr. Hynes are his
parents, Jayne and Rod Hynes, his aunt, Susan Murray. They are also joined by
the Executive Director of the Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador, Trish
Williams, and Program Director, Mike Daly.
Welcome
to all of you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Topsail
- Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue, Terra Nova, and Baie Verte - Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Rodger Rowsell of Leading
Tickles.
In 2016,
Rodger was certified 25 years with the Government of Canada. In 2018, he was
recognized for 20 years of public safety with the Canadian Coast Guard Exemplary
Service Medal, sailing 10 years in dangerous waters. He will have 29 years of
service on July 4. A Canadian Ranger for five years, Rodger receives his 35 year
service pin on April 14 at the upcoming Firefighters Ball in Leading Tickles.
Service
aside, Rodger has been a performer, releasing three CDs, including:
It's a New Day,
Captive to the Sea and Songs
of Inspiration and Christmas Joy featuring “Leading Tickles my heart can be
found.”
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in wishing safe anchorage for a
native son of Leading Tickles, the District of Exploits, and our province, with
a mannerism that makes one feel at ease in his company, as well as the offering
up of a helping hand whenever needed, our Rodger Rowsell.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, this year's
winter carnival, Snow and Ice in Paradise, was an opportunity for residents to
come out and celebrate the community with 10 fun filled days of winter events,
activities and entertainment.
From Feb
1 to 10, the Town of Paradise came together and celebrated the splendor of
winter which featured fun activities for adults and children alike. I, along
with my colleague from Conception Bay East - Bell Island, attended many of these
events. These successful events, such as family sliding day, retirement centre
visits, pre-teen dance, skating, Winterlude triathlon and more, would not be
possible without the numerous dedicated volunteers, corporate sponsors, the
councillors and staff who, through their tireless support, commitment and hard
work, made this winter festival a great success and a time of enjoyment
for
the community as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to all those who
contributed to the success of Snow and Ice in Paradise and I ask everyone to
join me in congratulating the Town of Paradise on another successful winter
carnival, adding to the quality of life in their community.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a lifetime of work, skill and talent by a
hard-working woman of Swift Current, locally known as Betty the baker. Whether
it's one of the heaviest and fullest pies you will find, or a moist tray of
banana bread, or one of her signature loaves of bread, Betty Eddy has been
producing her work to customers at the Goobies Irving for 39 years.
She takes great pride in her work, and has a devoted
and loyal following. Everyone stops for a loaf of Goobies bread along their
travels, and Betty is far too modest to share this story herself. She has passed
on her talented kitchen skills to her daughters Leslie and Jacqueline, who
co-operate LJ's Pitstop, also known locally as the Swift Current chip truck. So
you can pick up Betty's bread in Goobies or get her daughters' chips along your
way down the Burin Peninsula highway. So come and visit.
Just this winter, Mr. Speaker, the owner of Irving shut
down the restaurant to hold a surprise birthday party, as Betty turned 80 years
of age. And she vows she will continue working this spring for another season.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. Members, as they return
to their districts after this week's sitting, to drop in to the Goobies Irving
and get a loaf by Betty the baker, your families will thank you when you get
home.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR.
HOLLOWAY:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Byron Collins who has been inducted into the
Atlantic Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.
Nearly 30 years ago, while operating out of a two-bay
garage in Eastport, Byron, along with his brother-in-law, started the Collins
Aluminum and Repairs limited. Quickly seeing the results from their strong work
ethic, as well as an emerging opportunity in producing seafood and aquaculture
processing equipment, the Collins' expanded their business and constructed a new
facility in nearby Glovertown.
Boatbuilding would be the focus for the business, and
the first Silver Dolphin aluminum pleasure boat was manufactured a year later in
1981. Despite the onset of the cod moratorium in the 1990s, Bryon's focus kept
constant. Through the establishment of Fab-Tech Industries, an expanded line of
marine boats provided greater market opportunities throughout the province and
internationally, producing 150 boats annually.
Byron is very proud of his family-run business and says
that the key to survival is diversity, perseverance and innovation.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Bryon Collins for his contributions to the marine industry and his induction
into the Atlantic Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize and pay tribute to the hon. Joe Enook, Speaker of
the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, who passed away suddenly on Friday, March
29, 2019 while hospitalized in Ottawa.
Mr.
Enook was acclaimed as Speaker during the November 17, 2017 proceedings of the
Nunavut Leadership Forum. Speaker Joe was first elected to represent the
District of Tununiq in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in a by-election in
2011 and was re-elected in 2013 and 2017.
During
his tenure as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and as Speaker, he rarely
addressed the Legislature in English, as he preferred to promote the use of
Inuktitut.
I, along
with my colleague from Torngat Mountains, shared a wonderful friendship with
Speaker Joe and I so enjoyed the wisdom that he shared with us. He spoke often
about his homeland and community of Pond Inlet, for which he was most proud.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, Joe travelled to Goose Bay, Labrador to join us at the
National Presiding Officers Conference held January 31 to February 2, 2019.
Our
thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Mary, his family, friends and the entire
community of Pond Inlet.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me in sending sincere condolences to the Enook family.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today I recognize an amazing athlete from our province who recently
competed with Team Canada at the World Summer Games in Abu Dhabi.
Peter
Hynes from Placentia proudly brought home a bronze medal in the mini javelin
event, and was one of 19 podium finishes for Canada at the Games. Peter also
competed in the 100-metre run event, where he finished fifth.
Peter
was the only Newfoundland and Labrador athlete to compete in the Games, and on
March 24, a celebration event was held in Placentia to welcome Peter home.
With
over 7,000 athletes from 170 countries competing at this multi-sport event, it
is a major achievement to represent your country, and it is an outstanding
accomplishment to come away with a medal.
Getting
to represent Canada on the world stage takes an incredible amount of
determination, skill and perseverance, and our government commends Peter for his
hard work.
I would
also like to extend a special thank you to all of the volunteers, coaches,
parents and family members, who, as a group, are an essential part of the
success of all Special Olympians in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As well,
thank you to Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador which continues to
provide opportunities for sport participation and competition in our province.
I invite
all Members of this House to please join me in congratulating Peter for his many
achievements and most importantly being an inspiration to all of us.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his remarks. We join with the minister in
congratulating Placentia's own Peter Hynes on his bronze medal performance at
the World Summer Games. Congratulations also to his coaches, family and
supporters for giving him all the encouragement he needed to reach the podium.
Thanks
to the great work of organizations like Special Olympics Newfoundland and
Labrador, athletes like Peter are able to get the training and support they need
to succeed.
We're
sure that at the next World Summer Games there won't be only one Newfoundland
and Labrador athlete doing us proud on the world stage as Peter has.
Congratulations, Peter.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister and bravo to Peter Hynes on his win at the Special Olympics World
Summer Games. With over 7,000 athletes from 170 countries, Peter won a medal.
How wonderful is that? What an achievement? We can all be proud of, and be proud
for Peter.
This was
also made possible by the incredible team of volunteers, coaches, parents and
family members of our Special Olympics. Bravo as well!
This
government has cut back significantly on funds for sports and it is time to step
it up again. We all benefit with a healthier and more inclusive society.
Once
again, bravo Peter Hynes!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to highlight the MyGovNL pilot project for Motor Registration Division
that the Minister of Service NL and I launched last week in Gander. The pilot is
a key part of the Digital Way Forward, which is our five-year plan to better
deliver services online to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government, like all organizations, faces increased service delivery
expectations. Traditional methods of service delivery are becoming outdated, and
in some cases are unresponsive to the needs of consumers.
The
vision of the Digital Way Forward is to introduce a new approach to service
delivery: “One client. One GovNL. One relationship.” And that is what MyGovNL
does.
This
pilot project with the Motor Registration Division is the first publicly
available digital service under the Digital Way Forward five-year plan that was
announced in April of 2018. This particular enhancement allows residents to
manage their licence and vehicle renewals in one convenient online platform,
replacing several separate online functions. Those who participate will be able
to renew their licences and vehicles from the comfort of their own home.
Mr.
Speaker, better online platforms like this pilot project will improve the
overall experience that residents and businesses have when interacting with
government. Last week marked a significant step forward, with more services
expected to be delivered through this portal over the next four years.
At the
end of this five-year plan, the public will see government as one organization,
regardless of the individual or department with whom they interact.
The
Digital Way Forward Plan is another example of how our government is committed
to operating smarter and more efficiently for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for a copy of his statement. Government must always ensure we
are moving to make services and information more available and user-friendly to
residents. This is a good first step, but the administration's has had
three-plus-years to make tangible progress, and today we're just announcing a
pilot project.
Some
residents, we have heard, fear it will lead to further erosion of service
centres, that face-to-face interaction, in areas with little Internet coverage
and coupled with geographic isolation. This issue certainly needs to be attended
to and to receive consideration in any service delivery.
Progress
is indeed important, and we all recognize the value; however, government must
ensure, and make sure, that it benefits all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to see the
release of the online digital platform for dealing with licence and vehicle
renewals. It's certainly going to be a convenience for those with access to
high-speed computers, and for those who, geographically, are not close to the
offices where one can go in personally, if, of course, they have access to
high-speed computers. I do remind the minister that there are many people who
cannot access online services.
I also
remind him that basic services must be provided to all the people of the
province, and regular counter service, or its equivalent, must be made available
to those who need to use it.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
Premier guarantee to Members of the House of Assembly an opportunity to ask
questions about the heralded Atlantic Accord announcement, which is pending this
evening, and when will that be?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
You don't know, Mr. Speaker,
how glad that makes us on this side that we will at last be provided with full
and fair information about this heretofore secret negotiation.
Will the
Premier commit to making public all analysis leading up to this agreement
immediately after the announcement tonight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first of all, let me say this is the 70th anniversary of Confederation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Indeed today, Mr. Speaker,
this is a good day for Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to send congratulations
and thank the great staff that we've had working from many departments over the
recent weeks in preparing for what we've reached today with the agreement, which
we will announce the details at 6 tonight.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the staff for the work that they've done. They put in
an awful lot of hours. They spent time away from their family and today is
indeed a good day for Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be sharing the details
at 6 tonight.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We, on the Opposition side,
echo the Premier's sentiments and his gratitude for Confederation and for the
efforts of hard-working public servants. However, the question was: Will the
Premier commit to making the analysis behind this agreement public immediately
after the announcement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, it's our
intentions, of course, to release the details that we'll be signing, what the
agreement would be, on the agreement that we've reached.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the Atlantic Accord, first of all, I want to say it
lays upon the foundation of the Accord that was put in place way back into the
'80s and the considerable amount of work that was done even leading into the
official signing in '85 and '86.
Previous
governments and administrations have done reviews and we've seen agreements and
new arrangements that were put in place. Mr. Speaker, today's announcement and
this agreement that we've reached with the Government of Canada builds on all of
the great work that has been done. We'll be putting the details of that
announcement out there today, the agreement that we'll be signing with the
Government of Canada today, Mr. Speaker.
But I
also want to say this really builds on the successes that we've seen in many
other negotiations, Mr. Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
– be it with labour, be it
with industry, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to building on the answers to
this question from the Leader of the Opposition with his next question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We have no quarrel with the
content of the hon. Premier's answer to my question, except for the fact that it
did not answer the question, which is: Will you be making the analysis behind
what money is owing to Newfoundland and Labrador public after the announcement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the work that
goes into a negotiation feeds into what happens at the negotiating table. There
has been a tremendous amount of work that the staff has been able to do. The
details of whatever we use to get to an agreement will be released tonight. We
will put in place an agreement, the details with the agreement that we will be
signing.
Mr.
Speaker, it's important that when you get into a negotiation, no different that
we would have seen within our labour groups, within our industry groups, with
our communities, we've seen it with other provinces – we've had a lot of
success. It is one of the reasons why I want to remind the people and the Leader
of the Opposition that we will be leading as a province. We will be leading this
country in economic activity, GDP, in Canada next year, Mr. Speaker.
This is
much different province, a much better province today in 2019 than it was in
2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
These are admirable
sentiments but, Mr. Speaker, without the background materials and analysis,
scholars, economists, members of the public and, indeed, Members of this House
of Assembly whose constitutional responsibility it is to question the
government's actions will not be able –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– to ask intelligent
questions about the outcome.
So, will
the Premier commit to releasing the analysis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, today the people
of the province will see the great job that has been done and the agreement that
has been signed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
That information will be made
public, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this
province is better off as a result of the efforts of this agreement than they
were of the agreement that was signed by the previous administration related to
the Muskrat Falls project.
So, I am
not going to take negotiation advice by a PC Leader of the Opposition or any
Member of the PC Party in this province, Mr. Speaker. I just will not do it. We
have a good agreement. This province is in better shape. We will put the details
of this agreement out there tonight at 6. I will assure you there are benefits
for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will put money in their pockets,
not take it out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, a well-known
president of the United States of America said, trust but verify.
How does
the Premier expect us to do the verification without the background
documentation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the agreement
will speak for itself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Money will go into the
pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not take money out.
Mr.
Speaker, there is an inquiry that's going on in this province. You, the Leader
of the Opposition, has failed to stand up to the people of this province and
even apologize for the work that his party has done. I say to the Leader of the
Opposition will you please stand up, say that Muskrat Falls was a mistake,
apologize to the people of this province.
The
information that is coming out today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the actions
and the decisions that you have made, I can assure you the details of this
agreement will support Newfoundland and Labrador just like the previous
negotiations that we have done with industry, we've done with communities and
we've done with our labour groups. We are supporting Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
By this time it's plain, Mr.
Speaker, that the answer of the hon. Premier is that we on this side should
trust him and don't bother with verification.
I have
another question on this series of negotiations. In the letter from the Premier
to the prime minister in February of last year, the Premier raised the issue of
equalization arrangements and, coincidentally, equalization is rolling over
today.
My
question for the Premier is: Has equalization arrangements been addressed in the
course of these talks and will we hear about this tonight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, this is really
politics right now. The Leader of the Opposition is not interested in the future
of this province – not at all. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that
the equalization –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
– whether we like it or not,
is a federal program. The Leader of the Oppositions knows that quite well.
As a
matter of fact, it was the prime minister, I think, Stephen Harper who the
Leader of the Opposition wanted to run for, went begging to put his name on
Stephen Harper's ballot, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Leader of the Opposition
wanted to do who said that he would fix it, Mr. Speaker. He didn't deliver. As a
matter of fact, not only did he say no to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he
said no to you as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion
of such an important announcement having to do with relations between the
federal government and this province, and the welfare and benefits of this
province, the Premier indulges himself in irrelevant answers. Let's try this
one.
The
letter that the Premier sent to the prime minister raised the question of
undeveloped petroleum discoveries and mentioned the lingering uncertainty around
the federal government's new environmental assessment process.
Within
the framework of this review, has this uncertainty been resolved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, a
few weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources and I made a very public
announcement, and we spent time in Ottawa making a submission on Bill C-69.
I can
assure you that this government has spoken loud and clear about the position,
standing with industry in our province, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-69. As a matter
of fact, the submission is all publicly available. I certainly hope that the
Leader of the Opposition has read all of this. As a matter of fact, I think the
Senate Committee hearing will be in St. John's to look for people to present on
April 23.
I can
assure you, we will continue to support industry, the oil and gas industry, and
the mining industry, by the way. We talk a lot about the oil and gas industry,
but the mining industry is included in this as well, Mr. Speaker.
We are
standing with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians against and what should be in
Bill C-69.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
This is all a matter of
public information and knowledge.
My
question was: Has the uncertainty been resolved in the context of these
negotiations we're going to hear about?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I know the
eagerness of the Leader of the Opposition. All I'm saying is at 6 o'clock
tonight the details will be made to the people that are waiting; these are
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I would
ask the Leader of the Opposition tonight, as we put money into the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, that they would celebrate this
like Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should tonight.
There
are many components of what will be released tonight at 6 o'clock. I can assure
you this province is a better place as a result of the efforts of this
government and the negotiations that we've been able to do, not just on the
Atlantic Accord, but with labour, with industry, attracting nearly $18 billion
of economic activity to this province, that is creating jobs. Eight consecutive
months, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the employment in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The
record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, we are turning this province around.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Will the agreement confirm
the exclusive jurisdiction of C-NLOPB over environmental assessment on the
offshore?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, what I will say
is that at 6 o'clock tonight we will be sharing the details with the people of
our province.
C-NLOPB
is an important regulator in our offshore resources, and tonight we will share
the details. I can tell you the province is indeed a better place. It is indeed
a better place tonight once the announcement has been made, and I look forward
to sharing the information, the details of what will come out of this successful
agreement that we have reached on the 70th day, a celebration of Confederation
with Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Question Period, Mr. Speaker,
began on a note of optimism, that questions would be answered for a change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
This determination has gone
steadily downhill.
The
federal government's Hibernia equity share may be one item which has been
considered in the course of these negotiations.
Will the
Premier disclose, should there be any deal on the transfer of that share, the
value of the equity share?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I
will be very pleased to share with the people of the province the details around
tonight's announcement, which will create a lot of benefits to the people of our
province.
The
people of our province will have even more reason to celebrate once we get
together and share the information that we've been able to put together as a
result of the work of the officials, the engagement that we've had with the
federal government. Quite a bit of work.
There
are not a lot of hours left between now and 6 o'clock, and I think it's very
fair to actually share the information – I know the Leader of the Opposition is
very eager, very eager, but I can assure you, he will probably be one person –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Is it okay now, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
You're out of time, Sir.
PREMIER BALL:
All right.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm constantly
amazed at how much time it takes to give a non-answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
I guess we won't hear about
the value of the Hibernia equity stake.
To be
principal beneficiary, and I'm glad the hon. Premier brought up this term,
benefits, we have to enjoy local benefits from work generated by our offshore.
Will the
Premier ensure that the new agreement recognizes the need for local employment
benefits and the local supply industry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the things about having local benefits is having the environment for people to
invest within our province. I mentioned earlier, with
Advance 2030 we now, within the mining industry and the oil and gas
industry, have attracted some $18 billion of economic activity.
So, Mr.
Speaker, and for the first time since 1991, I say to the Leader of the
Opposition – I know he's not going to like this – but for the first time since
1991, Exxon will be doing an exploration well offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I know that's not good news
for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Just a few months ago we were
looking at not having an exploration program offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
In 2019, we will have a very aggressive offshore exploration program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Glad as we are to hear about
offshore exploration, we would be gladder to hear about attention being given to
the maximization of benefits in the supply chain and also some attention being
given to global supply agreements which have cut off and cut down local supply
business.
Can the
Premier comment on the attention he's given to this problem?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud
to stand and talk about the attention that this government has been giving to
the oil and gas industry, as well as the mining industry, the aquaculture
industry, the technology industry within our province. But he asked a question
about the oil and gas industry.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things we've done with the work coming out of the
partnership that we've had with those industry leaders is set aside an oil and
gas company with a focus expanding the mandate. So what we are doing as a
government, just attracting that investment – as I've mentioned already, we are
creating the environment to work with those local industries, Mr. Speaker. That
is one of the reasons why we are having a very aggressive and robust exploration
drilling program off our shore.
Just
concluding – and I know we had the minister and some other Members of this
government in Bull Arm just this week to see Seadrill is getting the West
Aquarius ready to go back to work off Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, things are moving in this province as a result of this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Despite the optimistic note
with which the Premier began Question Period, the Opposition finds that the
answers given are less than required for it to do its job of holding the
government to account.
Would
the Premier commit now to tabling answers to all the questions I have asked,
tomorrow in this House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you
that I mentioned, I think, just on Friday of last week, that some time before
now and when the schools close that we will have an election – we will have an
election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I will go in front of the
people of this province – and I'm guessing the Leader of the Opposition is
prepared to do the same thing – and we will put our platform, Mr. Speaker, up
against any platform that we've seen from the PC Party. It will be credible, Mr.
Speaker, and it will not be missing the boat on electricity rates by nearly
three or four cents a kilowatt, double counting $150 million on your electricity
rate mitigation.
Mr.
Speaker, I am more prepared, not only to answer the questions to the Leader of
the Opposition, but to people in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today the carbon tax begins in provinces that stood up to Trudeau and
refused to impose his carbon tax plan. Here in this province, consumers have
been paying the carbon tax since January 1.
Can the
minister provide an update on how much has been collected from consumers in
carbon tax over the past three months?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They're
obviously not interested in answers.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't have those numbers at my fingertips right now, but I'll have it
for you by the end of the day.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
interested in answers, but this government has a lot of trouble trying to answer
our questions. So I guess we'll wait.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
The minister promised he'll
get it for us; I guess we will wait.
The
carbon tax is set to increase from the current $20 a ton to $50 a ton by 2022.
Based on $20 a ton, consumers in this province are now paying an additional 4.42
cents per litre on gas and 5.37 cents per litre on diesel.
How much
more a litre will people be paying for your carbon tax next year, and how much
will they be paying in 2022?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the things we negotiated with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, on the
Made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan, was that we would not exceed Atlantic
parity.
Mr.
Speaker, the plan that we put in place for carbon pricing in this province –
we've heard from other provinces after we released the plan, wondering how we
got such a good deal. It was a plan that the opposite side had argued against.
It's a plan, Mr. Speaker, they said they'd fight the federal government on.
If we
had followed their advice, Mr. Speaker, we'd have the federal backstop today,
the same as the other provinces who have the federal backstop, and the people of
this province would be paying more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister, our plan is to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who are already overtaxed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Carbon tax is being passed on
to everyone through the price of food and other goods.
Will the
minister admit that the carbon tax is a tax grab which is negatively impacting
the people of this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the
hon. Member, that if we were part of the federal backstop today, like they are
in four other provinces on April 1, 2019, we'd be paying a lot more than we are.
Because we negotiated a Made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan, that protects
the people of this province, that protects the industry in this province and
works for this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
And I'm very proud of the
plan that we have negotiated.
As the
Minister of Finance has said, people are looking to us: how did we do it? Well,
you can tell that to the people in the provinces that are being hit today on
April 1, 2019 with the federal plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister, people are still paying, people are overtaxed and people are fed
up with this taxation. Any extra tax is too much. The minister doesn't get it.
This government doesn't get that, we do.
The
Liberal government has still been collecting carbon tax from the consumers in
this province for three months now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Can the minister tell us how
this has reduced emissions, and by what percentage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have
released a climate change plan that works for this province, that reduces
emissions and protects the environment and the people of this province, Mr.
Speaker.
Just
this year, the Premier, along with his federal counterparts, announced an $89
million low carbon economy fund, Mr. Speaker, of which the province is
responsible for $47 million. That's a program that will help the people of this
province, whether it's in climate change, whether it's in reducing carbon
emissions, whether it's in improving the houses in which they live in. But, Mr.
Speaker, the four cents that we charge on gasoline as part of our carbon plan
falls well short of the $47 million that we've invested in that program, which
is a good program for the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we continue to receive calls from a family whose 10-year-old child has
been denied access to a life-saving insulin pump, pending the outcome of a
review. We have tried to get answers on behalf of this family but, to date,
nothing.
Minister, can you advise if there has been a change in policy for insulin pump
replacement and why this child is not getting access to this life-saving device?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
insulin pump program has not undergone any change recently. We have actually had
some very productive meetings with medical students and others to encourage us
to look in other directions as to how we can broaden the program, and certainly
we are looking at those quite seriously.
The
program, for anyone under the age of 25, is universal, and their access is
determined slowly but solely by clinical appropriateness and no other criteria
at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for that statement, but at the end of the day, it's a program that
we brought in as the former administration. It's a 10-year-old child who is
trying to get the pump replaced that they need for life-saving insulin. We're
baffled to understand why they're not getting the answers they need to have this
done.
Mr.
Speaker, our party just recently announced that it would remove the age cap that
currently prevents people with type 1 diabetes from having their insulin pumps
covered be Medicare when they turn 25.
Will the
Liberal government commit to the same program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
say, we've been in discussions recently with a variety of folk, but some time
late last year we started to realize that the insulin pump program was in need
of redrafting. We have done that from both a clinical and an administrative
point of view, and we have a working group looking at options about eligibility
criteria of which age is one – watch this space.
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.
Recently, Equinor's head of international projects told a Norwegian oil
conference his company is cool on the Bay du Nord project, noting concerns about
cost, the relatively small proven reservoir and the challenges of working in a
hostile environment 500 kilometres from shore. He notes Equinor is far from
sanctioning the project.
I ask
the Premier: What happens to his new, stand-alone oil and gas company if Bay du
Nord is not sanctioned?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much for the
question.
I can
tell you that we meet regularly with Equinor. We work closely with them to help
them move towards advancing the Bay du Nord project. Like any business, they're
looking to improve their cost structure and making sure that it's as
economically viable as possible, but we are inching toward sanction, Mr.
Speaker.
As we
continue to approach that milestone, I'll continue to update the House as to how
things are improving, but I do know that things are progressing. I will be
having further discussions with Equinor as we move forward, Mr. Speaker.
So just
for clarity, there's been no change in the project. We have not been advised of
any change in the project.
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.
Inching
along for 500 kilometres, that takes a heck of a long time, Mr. Speaker, I would
say.
I'm
asking the minister: Do not the comments of Equinor's head of international
projects cause her any concern whatsoever? He made these comments publicly.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
aware of the comments made publicly. I'm sure that if there was a concern that
we should be more aware of, the project team would have advised us. It is still
on track. Mr. Speaker, there's been no change and no communication of change to
the sanctioning proposal.
This is
a smaller project in deeper water so, of course, they're going to want to make
sure it is done as economically as possible. We've always said that, but I'll
advise this House again that I have not been made aware of any change. It is
progressing.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Government is creating the new oil and gas company just by shuffling money
around, without any proof that the new corporation is needed, and now we don't
have proof there's going to be income for the new corporation.
It looks
like government is just playing a game of smoke and mirrors. So I ask the
Premier: Isn't the creation of a not-so-new energy company just another feeble
attempt on the part of this government to make it look like they're doing
something that makes a difference to our economy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that
there has been a tremendous amount of work in our economy. I can say, in the
Department of Natural Resources alone, we have signed up $18 billion – $18
billion – in the last couple of years alone in economic activity. How is that
not progressing in this province?
We're
creating jobs, we're creating opportunity, it's circulating throughout the
economy, Mr. Speaker, and this is just one department. Fisheries and Land
Resources is another department that's doing an awful lot of work in aquaculture
and agriculture. I can look to TCII and talk about what's happening in
technology, Mr. Speaker.
This
government has made incredible improvements to our economic opportunity.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Let's
try another question here. In two days of questioning the Minister of Natural
Resources, she refused to answer our questions on Nalcor's ability to supply
reliable power to the Avalon Peninsula in the wake of a failure of the
Labrador-Island link.
I ask
the minister: Yes or no – after spending $14 billion on Muskrat Falls, will the
province face extended rolling blackouts in the event of a break in the
Labrador-Island link?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I have not
refused to answer this question. I have been very consistent in my answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
The Member opposite may not
like my answer, in that Public Utilities Board who we brought back into this
project, the Public Utilities Board is reviewing the reliability of the report
and they will make a determination if more work needs to be done.
I can
say this, the standards and designs of the Labrador-Island link was done back in
2011, 2012, pre-sanction, Mr. Speaker. All that work was done then. The design
phase of that was done at that point in time. And that was under a different
government. Now we're looking at how do we ensure that the Public Utilities
Board uses their expertise to ensure that we have reliable power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Thank
you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling one order-in-council relating to a funding
pre-commitment for the fiscal years 2019-20 through to 2022-23.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
tabling the reports for 2017-18 annual report from Memorial University. I wish
to re-table the 2017 and '18 annual report from Memorial University containing
the audited financial statements.
I have
another one –
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, further tabling of
documents, Sir?
MR. DAVIS:
I wish to re-table the 2017-18 annual report for Memorial University's pension
plan containing the audited financial statements.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
I have a PMR, myself,
seconded by the Member for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
WHEREAS
The Premier's Task Force On Improving Educational Outcomes and Education Action
Plan both recommended developing a phased-in implementation plan for junior
kindergarten; and
WHEREAS
Ontario, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia have implemented and are in the
process of implementing province-wide junior kindergarten;
WHEREAS
play-based learning promotes children's natural sense of curiosity and discovery
through hands-on exploration of the world around them;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador taking necessary steps towards establishing a junior
kindergarten program.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
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, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS
women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many
food items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage
as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we know that the minimum wage today – it's April 1 – rose to
$11.40, among the lowest in Canada. What this government has decided to do is to
simply raise the minimum wage according to the rate every year of inflation.
There is no way we are going to catch up to the rest of the country.
I am not
sure why this government feels it is okay for our working people, people who
work so hard, often in the service industry, often women, often youth, deserve
any less payment for their labour than do the rest of workers in the rest of the
country. I don't understand how they can justify that.
What
happens is that they let a lot of the larger corporations off the hook, places
like Walmart, places like McDonald's, places like A&W who pay minimum wage, who
pay no benefits to their workers. Do you know who foots the bill for that, Mr.
Speaker? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador foot the bill for that. We foot
the bill for drugs, for medications, for pharmaceuticals because they don't have
health care plans. We foot the bill for subsided housing, so organizations,
businesses like Walmart, can make their huge profits where those huge profits
are sucked right out of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, it makes no sense any longer to not do better with minimum wage.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much to the hon. Member for bringing forward the petition again today.
I just
want to let the people of the province know that we have increased the minimum
wage to $11.40. It increased by 25 cents as of today. But this is a consultative
approach. It's very important that we take into account the balancing between
the business interests and the employees' interests; and, in turn, making sure
we make a decision based with the stakeholders that are at play in this
industry.
I'd like
to correct some of the inaccuracies the Member across the way brought forward.
To stand up in this House and to mention employers in this province, saying they
provide no benefits – that's not true. There are some of these employers – that
you've mentioned here today – that supply benefits to their employees. Many of
them do. I take offence to that.
Many of
the interests we have here today were based on stakeholder intervention.
Obviously, we're working at this legislation every day to look at if there are
ways to improve it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it's significant that on the day that minimum wage has gone up, giving a
pittance to the workers, that I have another minimum wage petition in my hand.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS
women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food
items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage
as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
The
petitioners have signed a petition that names things as they really are, Mr.
Speaker. When they talk about the indexing of the minimum wage to inflation, it
doesn't address the level of poverty. It does not. Because when the indexing
started, the level was so low that they're never going to get to $15 at the rate
things are going.
The fact
is the increase is not done according to the real indexing in this province. The
national average does not give us what is real in this province. This government
says they care. They've had the opportunity now since 2015 to make changes to
what was in place. They had the opportunity to bring the minimum wage up to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Just a little order, please.
It's becoming difficult to hear the Member.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
having difficulty myself. I notice I've been shouting because of it.
They've
had the opportunity to bring the minimum wage up much more quickly so that by
2021 it would be $15. They chose to remain with a system that is not going to
bring people up out of the poverty level of wages that they are earning, and
this is what this government is not recognizing but the people of the province
recognize the need for that to happen.
When we
talk about the way in which food items in this province have gone up, the cost
by 20 per cent; yet, minimum wage has only gone up by 5 per cent. It doesn't
take a genius to figure out that mathematics. Any child in elementary school can
figure out that math and tell us that people are going to continue living in
poverty for many years to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
I have the opportunity to get up and finish what I was talking about. One of the
things we did with this process is a transparent and open process so that all
parties know exactly what they will be faced with when those increases come.
Instead of an increase coming, blind siding one party versus the other, it would
be much better to have an open and transparent – everyone knows what process is
going to be in place.
Do I
agree that we have to look at legislation all the time? Absolutely, and we're
looking at that. We're past the two year point in this review. We're in the
process of developing a plan forward on that. So we're going to have all options
on the table for that.
I would
like to highlight some of the other programs we have identified here as well as;
the Jobs NL wage subsidy program that allows for wage subsidies in two different
categories for businesses to utilize to allow employees to benefit from those
subsidizations that the provincial government is providing, whether that be a
42-week program or a 28-week program, the employers can chose with working with
the employees to allow them to develop what they're going to do from there. And
I would just like to say –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Your time has expired.
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 experienced 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 will
include the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three
residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health care
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 would 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, petitions today are from Centreville and Wareham. I've raised this
now – I don't know how many times – petitions almost every day the House has
been open on behalf of Advocates for Senior Citizen's Rights. As the prayer of
the petition says, the concern they have is for seniors who are in long-term
care facilities, seniors with Alzheimer's disease, dementia and so on, and the
concern is that there is not always enough staff in place to provide the
appropriate care for those seniors. That is the issue.
Each time when I've raised it in the past, the minister will talk about the
great job that staff are doing, and nobody is disputing the fact that the people
working at these facilities aren't doing the best they can with what they have.
The issue is: Are there enough staff? And are there always enough staff?
As I've raised in the past; we've been told, within Eastern Health, of
situations where the first sick call is not replaced, as an example. I think
that was done as a punitive measure to staff in these facilities, in the sense
that if there are supposed to be four – if you call in, now you're leaving your
colleagues short. So now they're going to be upset with you, and maybe you won't
do it again. But the people who are really being penalized in those situations
are the patients.
If the patients are being penalized, if they don't have enough staff on at all
times to take care of them, we feel, and certainly the people here feel, that
it's unacceptable. They want to see legislation in place which would guarantee
certain staffing levels, to set a minimum standard and to ensure that it must be
in place at all times.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
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, Motion 1, and I will read it out for
the record.
That the
composition of the Resource Committee, the Government Services Committee and the
Social Services Committee will be as follows:
The Government Services Committee will consist of
the Members for the following districts: the Member for Torngat Mountains; the
Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Exploits; the Member for
Ferryland; the Member for St. George's - Humber; the Member for St. John's East
- Quidi Vidi; the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, and the Member for
Terra Nova.
The Resource Committee will consist of the Members for the following districts:
the Member for Exploit's; the Member for Bonavista; the Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune; the Member for Harbour Main; the Member for St. George's - Humber;
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member for Terra Nova; and the
Member for Topsail - Paradise.
The
Social Services Committee will consist of the Members for the following
districts: the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay; the Member for Cape St.
Francis; the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island; the Member for Fogo
Island - Cape Freels; the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member
for St. George's - Humber; the Member for St. John's Centre; the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port; and the Member for Windsor Lake.
I would
move that resolution, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So, Mr. Speaker, today this
is basically a resolution that is put forward on behalf of one of the lesser
known committees of this House, which is the Striking Committee, which is
essentially a committee that is struck to help strike committees, to help put
committees in place. It's a Striking Committee.
Again, I
won't belabour this too long, Mr. Speaker, but these committees here – and
you'll see here there's three: Government Services, Resource, and Social
Services. They've been around for some time. Generally the term that would be
referred to by Members when we talk about these committees, we often refer to
them as Estimate Committees because that is often the time when these committees
are used or implemented.
They are
made up of committees of Members of all sides of the House and, generally, our
experience with these committees is that they will be put in place during the
budget process so they will sit when the Estimates will happen.
For
instance, just to provide an example, when the Department of Justice comes to
the House with the Estimates Committee, usually on this side of the House you
have officials from the Department of Justice and Public Safety; on this side,
you'll have Members of the Social Services Committee. In many cases, it's the
Opposition who are asking questions but you have to have a committee there to
have quorum in order to have these sessions which form part of the budget
debate, and then to vote on the line by line, the line items that go into it.
Again, a
lot of times – it's funny, I saw this debate on twitter the other day where
people talked about committees of the House and how they aren't used, et cetera.
Sometimes people talk about – and there's some truth to that; although I would
say that one of the committees that we're actually going to refer to next, the
Standing Orders Committee, has been quite busy for some time. I'll also note
that the Privileges and Elections Committee has been quite busy as well.
One of
the reasons why this, I think, especially the composition of these committees is
important is that – so we talk about what the Standing Orders Committee has
done. Again, I won't get into that much. We've talked about it on a number of
occasions in this House when we've brought forward changes but one of the things
that the Standing Orders Committee has had on their agenda for some time is to
look at the possibility of legislative committees. A legislative committee, the
mindset was that we should have legislation brought before committees to allow
for question and answer, to have witnesses, and for basically a more thorough
investigation of a piece of legislation, similar to what we see in Ottawa.
So, in
doing this – this one's a bit more substantive, and I'll talk about why it's a
bit more substantive because it's not just formulating these committees, but it
does, essentially, change in many ways how the bureaucracy operate, especially
when it comes to the formulation, the drafting and then the presentation of
bills into this House.
Going
through the last three years, basically, of talking about this, and just more
recently we've had some more substantive conversations, our Standing Orders
allow for legislative committees right now. In fact, these committees that I've
just listed can examine legislation. The process is there and it can be used;
it's just that it has not been used. For roughly just under two decades, now, it
has not been used for various reasons, but that's one of the things we've talked
about. When I was a Member of the Opposition we talked about it, since we've
been over here we've talked about it and, in fact, Members of all sides have
asked about the possibility of bringing it back, and that's what we're hoping to
do.
So, how
will we allow for this to happen? What we've decided, in consultation with House
staff, is that the procedure is there to allow this to happen, but let's try it
on a pilot basis to see, okay, how is this going to work. So, what we've in fact
identified is that we will put these committees in place – not just will they
need to be put in place and have changes to allow for new membership; in fact,
we've had new Members come to the House that need to be put on committees, we've
had changes on both sides to allow for membership of these committees for the
usual purpose which is Estimates. But now, the goal is to bring a piece of
legislation to one of these committees, depending on which department it will
come from, and that Standing Committee here, depending on which one it falls
under – so for instance, if it was a bill that came from the Natural Resources
Department, it would fall under Resource; if it's a bill from Service NL, it
will fall under Government Services. We're going to allow that process to play
out, and our goal is to allow that to happen this session of the House.
Now,
there are two ways that this can happen. One is if – normally what we do in our
Legislature is, if anybody knows the legislative process, we give notice of a
bill, and that's essentially reading out I give notice of said bill that we will
bring forward tomorrow. So then we call first reading on a second day, and only
one stage can happen per day, except for, as you move to the next stage, second
reading, which is the most substantive part of the debate where Members get an
opportunity to stand up and speak for 20 minutes. Unless you're the mover of the
bill, then you get an hour. Then we move into the Committee stage which is a
Committee of the Whole of the House where everybody can stand up, ask questions,
answer.
That's
one way in which this can be done. I have seen, albeit rarely, where we've had
opportunities for Members to ask questions, for changes to be given and I have
seen bills, on rare occasion, be modified in the House based on the debate that
comes back and forth. And, finally, there's a third reading.
I guess,
practically speaking, a bill could take four days is the normal process for how
long it will take to move through a House – that's if there is not as much in
terms of the questioning, in terms of the substantive debate. We've seen here,
even in this session, we have a number of bills that go through that are very
housekeeping in nature. It's a more perfunctory debate, not a huge
philosophical, opinion-based debate on both sides of the question and answer.
Those can go fairly quickly.
So one
thing we've talked about is the possibility for after a bill to come through,
and after it gets to second reading, to refer to the bill to the Law Clerk, to
the House, and then for that committee for which falls under whatever department
it is falls under, whatever committee, then we can debate that.
The
other option is to refer a bill prior to notice being given. There are two very
different reasons why you want to do that. Once you establish second reading of
a bill, the fact is that for all intents and purposes its substance has been
set. There can be changes, but there will be no substantial changes that will
modify the intent or purpose or the real substance of that bill; that's not
going to happen. You can allow for changes, but you wouldn't substantially
change that bill. Whereas a bill that were to go forward prior to that, prior to
the notice being given, can possibly be allowed to change it substantially from
what its original intent was. So that's some of the things that we grapple with.
The
other thing is that when we look at debates – and I've seen this especially, I
think one of the last times that a legislative committee was allowed to look at
bill was back when companies were looking at the tobacco. It might have been the
Department of Health, I can't exactly remember, but it was dealing with tobacco
legislation, talking about recovering costs for legislation and litigation
against tobacco companies.
In that
case, what happened – generally speaking, very rarely do you see a bill come in
through one session of the House – and for purposes of this, because there are
different meetings, when I say a session, I mean a spring session or a fall
session. Very rarely do you see a bill start in one session and end up being
debated in another session and its substance has a significant period of time in
between. Now, I've seen opportunities where you can do a notice or a first
reading and then get down to the meat of the debate at another session, but very
rarely do you start a second reading or a committee stage on a bill and then
finish it during another session.
When you
put a bill to committee, the fact is that it delays that process, which leads to
the next part of my conversation here and my talking about the main purpose of
what we're hopefully going to see these committees doing is that when we look at
bills, the purpose of bills, generally, as I've ever seen in the eight years
I've been here, is that you have them entered into the House, debated in the
House and come out and then hopefully get proclaimed and then Royal Assent and
then proclamation at some point during that one session.
Not very
often do they get delayed to allow for a substantive change or for a committee
to look at them to amend them, to hear from witnesses. We haven't seen that. And
in terms of departments doing the work that leads up to that, it's funny, people
see what happens in here, people do not see what happens in allowing the bills
to come to the floor of the House, all the work that happens.
There
are departments submitting papers, they go to Cabinet secretariat and they often
come back for questions. They can go to other departments, whether it's Women's
Policy or Justice or you name it, to allow for comment and for review, and it's
going back and forth it takes some time. Then it will go to a committee, whether
it's social policy or economic. In some cases, it can go to Treasury Board. Then
it has to go to the Cabinet table. In many cases, it can go back, depending on
how substantial that bill is. This can take some time.
In many
cases, there are times when bills come forward when time is of the essence and
you want that. We've seen cases where you need to have a bill during that
session in order, for various reasons – financial reasons, time reasons, you
name it.
One time
I looked at – just in the last year when we had cannabis legislation, where we
were under the gun there because we're following the feds. Their House sits at
different times than ours, we had to look and see what the feds came up with,
and then we had to allow for ours to happen. These had to happen on a timely
basis or else we would be in, perhaps, contravention or not have legislation in
place.
But I
digress. I come back to the fact that there's a substantial process behind the
scenes to allow for these bills to come to the House. Now we're going to have a
change here where, depending on what comes out of this committee stage, that can
delay the implementation or a debate of a bill. But that's fine.
So
that's what we need. Some of these bills will not need committee review. When we
look at the bill I did just the last couple of weeks, the anomalies and errors
in the statute law, the commas, we talked about just, really, an almost purely
housekeeping bill where we talked about because bill A changed, we must change
bill B to reflect the changes in bill a. Those are not going to go to committee.
But when
you look at some of the bills we've dealt with here in the House where – and
again, a prime example would have been Bills 60 and 61 in this House which were
related to Muskrat Falls. Those are bills that should have gone to a committee,
and I think we all would have wanted to see that.
When I
think about Bill 29 – and I'm sure that there are bills that we've done and want
to do. For instance, there's one bill that I wanted to bring, hopefully will be
giving notice this session. The short term, the popular term, is Clare's Law.
It's the interpersonal information disclosure act and I've talked about that.
That's a good bill where everybody talks about it's a positive intent, but it
carries with it significant implications, not just in terms of access to
information and the release of information but also the practical application of
a bill where we're talking about the release of a person's information so it
allows a partner in a relationship to know their prior domestic violence
history.
Now, I
can stand up all day and talk about how great it is and how wonderful it is, and
I don't think for a second, for instance, that my colleagues on the other side
would disagree with the intent but they may have questions as to how's this
going to work. In that case, I don't think it's as much a philosophical debate
as it is a practical debate and it's a good opportunity.
There
are some bills where government wants to set their agenda and the fact is that
it's an opportunity where you just may not have an agreement but still – and
again I'll give you a prime, prime, prime example of when that should happen.
Before many of us sat in this House, I know there are at least three people who
sat in this House when Abitibi was expropriated.
I mean
that was one that was literally rushed through this House, take our word for it,
we mean well and look what happened. Now again, that's not about embarrassing
anybody. That's been done. But I'm talking about the purpose of the lack of that
sober second opportunity that look at a piece of legislation, led to serious
financial implications for the people of this province. Nobody was trying to
pull a fast one; I'm not saying that at all. I think everybody meant for the
same thing to happen. We were all looking for the best interests, but the fact
that that debate did not happen, there were not an opportunity to look at what
did this actually mean, what were we actually doing, what were the practical
consequences, led to a case where, oh, we thought we were doing this, but this
is what we actually did and this cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Maybe
those things won't be caught, but I'm saying that we're trying to get back to a
process, to take the word that I often hear some of my colleagues say,
wholesome, robust discussion. Two words that I really detest using in debate
because they're overused sometimes but that's what we're allowing.
My
colleague from the NDP agrees. Those are the best words I can come up with right
now to say that's what this purpose is. It's to allow for a more thorough debate
on a bill. Now, will there be hiccups with this? You better believe it. Will
there be disagreements on how it's done? Of course there will, but I think what
we're showing is a willingness to make things different, a willingness to try to
do things better.
Mr.
Speaker, it's funny, because everything I just said, which is a lot of
substance, one would not ascertain that from just reading the resolution that
was entered in here, but the fact is that the Members' names that were just here
are going to be the Members that get to sit on a legislative committee at some
point – hopefully this session, hopefully on a bill we've been working on, and I
think we may have one identified – will work with the House staff, because I
think there may only be one person on our House staff that actually has some
actual practical history and experience of actually dealing with this.
So we're
going to try it here and we're going to work through it and see how it goes. I
think everybody agrees with the need to do this; now it's the figuring out the
practical implications. On that note, I look forward to our support for the
Striking Committee resolution and for these Members and I look forward to their
comments on this resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour and a privilege here to stand as we talk about a unique –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– approach to debate in the
House and discussing legislation, and bringing what we feel to the House of
Assembly the best piece of legislation that represents the inclusive views of
all parties and all engaged, and hopefully there's a way to also look at how our
independent Members can be engaged in this process. I think we need to be open
for that discussion, because the structure and the compilation of the House of
Assembly is evolving on a daily basis and may change 10 times more over the next
number of years.
So, it's
important that we be cognizant and open to a more inclusive way of having open
debate, a much more efficient way of ensuring the legislation meets the needs
that it was originally established to do, and find a way that we entrust the
general public that their views are going to be heard, and that an open
discussion is put in play to make sure the legislation reflects what their
particular needs are.
To get
to that point, and as the minister so eloquently outlined, we've always had a
democratic process in play here. You know, we're not outdated here when it comes
to our structure. We may be outdated in implementing the operations of those, or
using what we had at our disposal, because we were so entrenched in traditional
ways that we've done things, and saying this has always been the compilation of
this particular process or committee, or this is the only responsibility that
they've ever taken on, or we don't want to overburden them with particular other
challenges or responsibilities, or we haven't allocated particular staffing
resources to meet the needs that they would need to actually achieve and take on
what could be outlined as additional responsibilities.
So, over
the last number of years, with the Standing Orders Committee, we've had
discussions around, how do we do three key things. How do we make it more
inclusive in the debate process that we have here to ensure the best piece of
legislation that is possible is put forward to this House to be voted on and
debated to the general public so they understand exactly what the intent of the
piece of legislation is?
The
second was, at the end of the day, to ensure that we've modernized the
operations of the House of Assembly and the debate process and using what
mechanisms we have.
The
third would be to assess our existing structure and to either change it, modify
it where necessary, to improve what we're doing; but, more importantly, and
particularly what we started to do, look at the existing structure. These are
structures that have been evolving for the last hundreds of years in democratic
parliaments, and they have been upgraded in certain areas. Some of them, when
they were established, were workable. They just haven't been implemented in the
process. Some were very useful years ago but haven't been used in a modern day.
Other ones have just gone on to the wayside and have not been taken advantage
of. Other ones need to be entrenched in a new approach.
So what
we've taken and the discussion we've had over the last number of years is about
identifying the particular better pieces of structure we have in our Legislature
in how we operate to ensure we make them more effective.
What the
minister outlined when he noted who would be Members of particular committees,
and he did outline that we have three Select Committees here which have a key
representation from the three particular parties. And we need to have a further
discussion about independent Members, what role they play in the composition,
what role they play in the debate process, because everybody is elected to this
House of Assembly, regardless of what their political stripe is or if they are
independent. They all have a role, a responsibility and a right to be part of
the debate process. So we need to work some of the nuances out around how we
make that more inclusive.
As the
committees have been announced here, they span three different particular areas
within government when it comes to programs, polices and spending. That becomes
the reality. When you talk about programs, policy and spending, you normally
think around your budget line, because your budget line is the dollars that will
dictate the programs you're going to be able to offer, the policies related to
who can access those programs, and what policies are to be implemented.
When you
look at that, the tradition has been these committees are only active outside of
the other legislative committees. That we have to have other things, like the
Standing Orders Committee, the Management Committee, and a number of other
committees that we may have there.
These
committees have traditionally been used for a short period of time, normally in
the spring of the year when the budget lines are down, and becomes a very
encompassing period of time where there's debate on particular finance related
issues to the budget, which then would, obviously, incur the programs that are
going to be implemented for that fiscal year. In some cases, even though in
debate in Estimates, policy is not supposed to be at the forefront, but most are
open to say you can't spend money and you can't develop programs if they're not
reflective of the policies that you're trying to implement.
So
there's been, in most cases, a fairly open dialogue between the minister and
their staff, and the Chair who will be chairing these particular meetings, and
the Opposition parties who've been asking the questions.
Just so
people are aware, the way these committees work in Estimates, there would be a
Chair who would then Chair the proceedings and give equal time back and forth to
ensure that there's continuity and there's an even flow, and that people are
given an opportunity to ask particular questions. And, in return, the minister
and their staff are given an opportunity to respond and share information that's
relevant to that particular budget line, or the particular program they're going
to be implementing, and clarify exactly how they would be implemented, the time
frames, the impacts it may have. So, the process we have there is fairly fluent.
The
issue has become in the last couple of years, is: Why couldn't that same process
– maybe modified a little different, maybe you don't need a Chair that stands in
that formal process, but you do have these committees that could take on
particular issues or pieces of legislation and have an open debate and an open
dialogue around what it is that the piece of legislation is trying to achieve.
Is it a brand new piece of legislation? Then, obviously, there has to be – in my
opinion – a bigger discussion with the stakeholders, those who are directly
going to be affected, and then the general population.
If it's
the modification of an existing piece of legislation, how do we get to this
point? What was the driver behind the change that was necessary? Was it
identified at the grassroots level? Was it a particular interest group that
identified a flaw? Was there a loophole that was identified because of something
that was taken advantage of or something that was discovered at the end of the
day?
Is it
just around modernizing, because other jurisdictions have taken a proactive
approach and moved things a little bit quicker and it's time that we caught up?
Is it just we're going through normal cycles where we review legislation and
say, you know what, there are particular – in some cases, they're housekeeping
changes that need to be done so that it outlines specifically what are the roles
and responsibilities of this piece of legislation. So there are a number of
things there that would drive why you would have an open debate and a
full-fledged discussion on a piece of legislation.
We did
have discussions over the last, probably the last five, six months, particularly
around are we at a good point now to take a piece of legislation and test the
process that we've already had in play for years but have very seldom done; or,
in this case, never in this normal process. We've done it with all-party
committees in another process but, obviously, it tells you about the, I guess,
at the time, the traditional way of doing things. Because to have to ask to set
up an all-party committee to address a particular issue tells us that
traditionally people never understood the legislation stands, that we have the
ability to do that.
So that
says, again, about having to educate ourselves about what's acceptable, what the
understanding would be and what the roles and responsibilities and the
flexibility in a particular committee and a particular piece of legislation that
we have here that drives the House of Assembly.
We've
gone the route, and we've done a couple over the years. We've done them on,
particularly in the fisheries. We've done it on mental health and have seen the
successes and benefits of engaging a variety of stakeholders, engaging all
parties to be fluent with the process, to ensure that if they have a mechanism
to be able to reach out to particular disenfranchised individuals who may have a
stake in this piece of legislation, or who can share valuable information to
ensure the legislation is the best it can be, then that only opens up the door
for this to be more effective. We've had that process.
Having
standing committees where you have members who come from various backgrounds,
various geographic backgrounds, their own social backgrounds, their educational
backgrounds, and their employment backgrounds to challenges in their particular
districts, but also that they represent various parties. There may be a
philosophy, there may be a standing policy within a party, or they may have
taken on a particular issue that they themselves have been fostering forward. So
they may have more information that now can be shared with the whole of the
committee as you start to review the piece of legislation that you're about to
debate.
What we
decided to do was, could we find a moderate piece of legislation. We didn't want
to go something that was housekeeping, a little too fluffy, that really wouldn't
get us into a real debate and a real understanding of how we could – I can't
even say challenge our present structure, but to better use our present
structure. Because our present structure is designed in a manner that we can,
through full inclusion, through proper representation, with the exception of
figuring out what we'd do from an independent point of view – and that's
something that we'll have that debate. One thing about it, it wasn't dismissed
that it wasn't important. It's about now figuring out how we encompass that into
the existing structure we have.
So then
we looked at do we take a very complicated piece of legislation – and probably
not a smart move, because while we're trying something new, we're not quite sure
what the particular challenges may be. Are there going to be nuances that we
didn't anticipate, which has a negative impact on the piece of legislation? And
again, we want to show that this process can work, can achieve the ultimate
goal, can get a full inclusive process here, and then could bring back a piece
of legislation that can be debated and adopted based on the merits of the
information that had been previously reviewed and put into play.
It may
mean modifying the existing piece of the legislation that was put forward for
change. It may now change 10 times over. It may revert back. But at least at
this process, you have an open ability to have a more influential exchange of
information, views, and particularly any other types of related legislation.
The one
good thing I like about this too is when you start talking of a piece of
legislation here, sometimes because it's in the quickness of the House, it's
being delivered, you don't get an opportunity to say this piece of legislation
here that's relevant to one line department, if you really dig down by changing
this, it may have an impact on another piece of legislation that's relevant to
another department, or the same department. And we don't get that ability to do
that.
I think
when we get into committee, because of the representation there, there may be
something that would trigger a particular thing if there is something that has
an influence on another piece of legislation, that would be important. We may be
able to save us future time lost and extra work, or we may be able to say, you
know what, the continuum here that would make sense, this has a relationship to
another piece of legislation, let's plan that the next piece of legislation
that's important to be changed and notify a particular department or that same
department, here is what needs to happen. For this piece of legislation to be as
effective as we want it to be, something else has to change in another piece of
existing legislation. So we have that ability to have that open dialogue and
exchange that information.
So what
we have agreed to, that we would pick a moderate piece of legislation that we
can sink our teeth into that will take us through the committee process and it
will fit under one of these existing committees, obviously, for those Members
who are put there based on their roles within government, their roles within the
Opposition, the critic's role, or their speciality, for example. It depends on
their previous background before they came into government. Or a particular
other committee they may be on here in government itself or here in the House of
Assembly.
This
will give us that opportunity to test the waters. I'm looking forward to the
piece of legislation coming down and seeing how it evolves. It's going to be a
living entity. I'm convinced it can be done. I'm convinced it can be done for a
number of reasons. We did it efficiently on the mental health committee, we did
it on the fisheries committee a number of years ago, so there's nothing stopping
us from being able to do it using the existing format we have; but, at the same
time, being cognizant that this is an open process that needs to be modified as
we identify challenges or particular add-ons that should be part of it to make
it a little bit more successful and a little bit more inclusive as we go
forward.
The
composition here is a normal, standard thing. How we use that composition, now,
is entirely up to this House of Assembly, and because the Standing Orders
Committee have adopted a process that we're going to move this to the next
level, this is going to be, I think, a landmark test to see if we can make the
Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly as we move into an
election that'll happen soon, the next sitting, the next Assembly, what that
would mean for the operations in this House, and maybe we change the whole
inclusive process, maybe we get legislation that is either changed more often
because it reflects the changing needs of society, or we get it right the first
time and we get a longer period of time with legislation that doesn't have
loopholes in it and doesn't add challenges to the general public who may have to
avail of that legislation, or to the government that has to implement and
monitor that piece of legislation.
So, I
just want to note that I'm looking forward to how this evolves, and I know us on
the Official Opposition side are looking forward to the first piece of
legislation, getting our teeth into that, working with the committee and finding
a way to ensure we get the best piece of legislation out there, and then
probably start an ongoing process that changes the normal standard of how we
operate with committees in the House of Assembly.
So, I'm
looking forward to this as we move forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm glad
to have a few moments to speak to the motion that's been brought forward by the
Government House Leader. This is something that happens every year. It's an
important piece of work because it relates specifically to the Estimates process
which follows government's release of its budget. The House Leader did a good
job of explaining how the three committees, the Government Services Committee,
the Resource Committee and the Social Services Committee are what are called
Standing Committees of the House of Assembly, and that means they are committees
that are always in place. So having Members named to the committees is extremely
important because these committees can be called upon to do a variety of work.
Now, as
has been explained by the Government House Leader and by the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, even though there's a variety of work that
these committees could do, traditionally, they've only been assigned in modern
times, or in recent years, the job of Estimates of budget. That means the
committees and the Members on the committee get the opportunity to question
departments about their budgets.
I'd like
to say that in recent times, since we've had – right now we have three
independent Members and I remember when there was just the one independent
Member at various times, especially the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands. Even
though the independent Members are not a member of the committee, they do come
to the Estimates and are given time to ask questions. I think it's important
that that be recognized. I don't think it's necessary – it would be rather
difficult, say if all of a sudden you had five independents, to have independent
Members on committees. Would you say all five would serve on every committee? So
that could become tricky. But the recognition of the right of the independent
MHA to be part of Estimates, I think, is really important and I see that as
something that we should formalize.
In other
words, it just shouldn't be will the Members of the committee permit the
independent Member present to ask questions. It should be that there is time
recognized that should be allowed for independent Members to be part of the
questioning of the department. The minister really is who they're questioning
and the minister is responsible for the answers.
What's
really interesting about Estimates, I think it's one of the most interesting
times of the year, of the legislative year, is the budget discussions and the
Estimates. Because, in actual fact, when we sit and discuss with the minister,
the minister, generally speaking, will use his or her officials who are there
with them at Estimates, and will use them to really explain what's in the budget
in this given year, for example, what happened with the budget last year. You
get to look at what was estimated for last year. You get to look at what was
really spent, if there's a big disparity between those two numbers, whether it's
spending more than expected or spending less than expected, you get an
explanation from the department, through the minister, to those questions. Very
often, very, very good information comes out; good information in the sense that
you're getting the information. You may not like the information sometimes that
you get, but it's very important.
I
remember one time, I won't mention departments, but a department revealing that
it had spent quite an amount of money – hundreds of thousands of dollars they
sort of had in their budget, and they used it to buy a building. That was very
interesting.
Another
time we found out, because a certain amount of money wasn't expended in an area,
that in actual fact an important service for Aboriginal women and the justice
system was gone; that something wasn't being built what should be built. So very
important information can come out during Estimates. It really is a very good
time in the legislative year, I find, as an MHA.
Putting
these Standing Committees in place is essential for the process of discussing
the budget. Of course, we have an expectation that soon there will be a budget
brought here on to the floor of the House and these Committees will begin their
work.
I'd like
to speak to the broader picture, which I think both the Government House Leader
and the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island spoke to, and that is the
fact that we can actually use the Standing Committees, these three Standing
Committees in particular and others, to be involved in the process of
discussions of suggested legislation, of bills. Using the Standing Committees to
actually have a full discussion of bills, a discussion that could involve
bringing in specialists to meet with the committee, bringing in professionals
who are involved with the issue that the bill is covering, this is something the
committee can do.
It's
very interesting, and I think the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island
made reference to this. If you take our Standing Orders book and you read our
Standing Orders on Committees, it's fascinating to see how we really do have the
structure in place. We have an excellent structure, actually, in place for using
our Standing Committees when it comes to legislation.
I'm
delighted that the minister, the Government House Leader, did talk about the
fact that there is going to be a step forward in doing that here in the House. I
think it's in this Assembly that he has it planned. As a Member of the Standing
Orders Committee, I'm quite pleased we came to a decision to move forward, that
a piece of legislation will actually be passed over to a committee to work on,
to see are there questions that need to be answered. Not doing that kind of
thing here on the floor of the House, but actually in committee. And if the
committee needs to call in witnesses, if the committee needs to speak to people
who in the past maybe people in the department have spoken to, the committee
will be able to do that.
I think
it's a step forward in terms of making the House of Assembly a more democratic
place to be, and not just here in the Legislature but also in terms of our
interaction with the community. The recognition that it's not just the
government who has responsibility for putting legislation together, it's not
just the department that has the responsibility for the legislation for that
department, but all Members of the House have responsibility, and the community
needs to be part of that; the community has ideas.
When you
use a Standing Committee to discuss a piece of legislation, it allows for the
community to be brought in and to have that discussion together with the
committee. So it would lead to a greater sense of democracy of involvement in
the development of our legislation, and that's what I'm excited about. That's
what I'm pleased about.
I'm
happy in the context of approving this year's three committees, the membership
of this year's committees, that in this context I'm able to talk about that need
for a broader democracy in how we run our Legislature itself and how we interact
with the people who vote for us and put us in this Legislature, that we're not
just here to talk to each other. Sometimes we don't do that well, but we're not
just here to talk to each other in the Legislature. We're here not just to
represent the people who elect us, but we should also be here to involve them in
the discussions we have here on the floor of the House.
Yes, I'm
pleased the motion is on the floor with regard to putting our three committees
in place. As I said, I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to speak a bit
more directly to the issue of the use of our standing committees and the fact
that we also can set up special committees as well. There've been times here in
the House when special committees have been set up to deal with an issue.
For
example, some years ago – I think it was around 2006, 2005-2006 – a special
committee was set up to look at the whole issue of Newfoundland Hydro.
Privatization was the issue at that time of Newfoundland Hydro. It didn't happen
– thank goodness, I have to say, but committees were used. The auto insurance,
if I'm not mistaken, I think that was a special committee as well, which looked
at auto insurance some years ago also.
There
have been times when we've had a high use of special committees, for example.
The last 15 years, not so much so, but prior to that we had a high use of the
standing committees as well as special committees. So I'm glad to see we're
looking at moving back into that direction. I've been pleased to be on the
Standing Orders Committee where we've been having these discussions, and I'm
glad the minister brought that information to the floor of the House today.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. First of all, I will be,
obviously, supporting the motion. On its face, it's basically routine business
relating to the budgetary process and the setting up of committees for the
purposes of Estimates.
I, like
other Members have said – certainly, the Member who just spoke before me said –
I think that Estimates is a tremendous process. It's one of the better processes
we have, that I've experienced, at least, in my seven-plus years here in the
House of Assembly, where you really get to get down into the weeds, if you will,
of the budget and have an opportunity to be able to ask the ministers of all the
departments, with staff present, line-by-line questions about the budget. It's a
very important exercise, it can be a very educational exercise. I think it's a
very worthwhile exercise.
I would
say in my experience, though, that the process can vary from time to time,
depending on the minister. And the minister has a tremendous role to play in the
whole Estimates process. I've seen it in two different administrations where,
depending on who the minister was on any given night when Estimates were taking
place, you could have a very educational and engaging experience, or you could
have an experience where the particular minister decided that he or she didn't
want to share any information and basically just read the answer that was
provided in their little booklet to any changes in budget lines and simply say,
yeah, we spent more on furniture, next question. As opposed to – and not being
open to answering any questions beyond the actual budget line in sort of a
specific sense.
And
there have been other ministers, as I said, who have been very open to
discussing things. Not just discussing the budget line itself and the change in
the line, but the philosophy, if you will, behind why the change was made,
discuss the change in policy that led to a budget line changing, to discuss a
change, perhaps, in direction that led to budget lines changing and so on.
We've
had ministers – I give credit, one that comes to mind is the Government House
Leader. I found he was very engaging when we were doing it with the Department
of Justice in terms of answering questions, answering policy questions, giving
his views and opinions on different matters that weren't necessarily a specific
budget line. And that's what we want to see, but we've also seen other ministers
in the past who, as I said, weren't so forthcoming with information. They didn't
want to talk about policy at all and simply said, yeah, here's the variance from
this amount to this amount, next question. And that was the end of it.
That
wasn't a very good process, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and it did nothing for the
exchange of information. It did nothing in terms of the spirit of co-operation
and getting the information out there to the public. So I certainly encourage
all ministers, this time around, to be engaging. Let's all ask good questions,
get good answers, because at the end of the day, we are working for the public.
If you
talk to a lot of people out there, generally, that's one of the things you hear
from people. Why can't you all get along? Why can't you all co-operate to the
benefit of the people, instead of fighting with each other all the time and
having this adversarial approach. People want to see us all working together.
This is
one avenue, if it's done properly with the best of intentions and the spirit of
co-operation, where we actually get to share information for the benefit of
everyone in this House, and certainly the benefit of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. So I'm glad to see that process continue. Obviously, what we have
here is just the Members who have been selected to be on these committees for
the purposes of voting for Estimates.
I do
want to also acknowledge my colleagues from Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, and thank them for recognizing the fact that we do
have – well, now we have three independent Members in the House of Assembly, and
we were all duly elected. We all represent approximately 15,000 people or so. So
it's important that we have an opportunity to have some input.
Traditionally, I have to say, I've received great co-operation from the Official
Opposition and from the NDP caucus in providing me with leave, if I attended an
Estimates session, to be able to ask a few questions. Generally, a lot of times
you don't have a whole load of questions because, primarily, the questioning is
going back and forth between the Official Opposition and the NDP. So a lot of
the questions – if the Member asking the question on behalf of the Official
Opposition has already asked a question about a particular budget line and got
no answer, well, then there's no need for the Member for the NDP or from myself,
as an independent, to ask the same question all over again.
So a lot
of times as you're listening to the questions being asked and the answers being
given, you're making notes and you're getting those answers. In a lot of cases,
in my case, I wouldn't necessarily need to ask a lot of questions because they
were already asked and answered in a lot of cases anyway. But having that
opportunity to ask questions, to seek clarification on answers that may have
been given, I think it's important. As someone who represents a district, duly
elected, I think I should have that opportunity.
I'm glad
and I appreciate in the past being given leave to do that, but as the Member for
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi said, I think it would be a positive step if there
was some formal recognition of that in the policy to recognize that in a formal
way as opposed to, in theory, showing up and wanting to ask a couple of
questions and not receive leave. Again, that's never happened. I have no reason
to believe it would, but, still, I think having it there, that there would be
some recognition in allotting a little bit of time, a proportionate time to do
that, I think it's important. So I certainly encourage the minister and the
committee, as you're formulating this process that something be put in there to
specifically address that issue.
Now, I
also wanted to speak to what the minister spoke to when he introduced the bill,
which I didn't realize it was going there. I'm very pleased to hear it is;
albeit, it's something that I have been asking for, for the last three years. I
know the NDP in particular have been really asking for use of all-party
committees for as long as I've been in the House for sure – probably before
then, but certainly since I've been in the House – and the use of all-party
legislative committees.
So I'm
glad to see that we're finally going to make some movement in that direction;
albeit, it's too bad we're sort of on the eve of an election now when we're
doing it. It would have been nice if we had started that process, say, three
years ago, but better late than never. I will certainly support that concept.
I'm glad to see we're doing it.
I would
once again say that in the same way that independent Members attend the
Estimates process, I would ask the committee for consideration to put some sort
of a similar process in place for the legislative review as well and, at the
very least, if Members who are on these committees are going to receive
notification that there's going to be a meeting to discuss whatever, then at
least copy the independent Members on that. To let the independent Members know
there is a going to be a review of a piece of legislation, provide the
independent Member with that legislation so that Member can either attend the
meeting – not saying to vote on it, but at least attend that meeting as he or
she would do in Estimates and have the ability to provide a little bit of input
and feedback.
It
doesn't mean they're voting on it, because I understand the challenges around
that and the numbers game and so on, but at least the opportunity to attend, to
give some feedback if he or she wishes to, or if the Member is not available to
go to that meeting or whatever, at least be notified of the bills so that the
Member could submit a written submission or an email or something to the
committee saying I understand you're going to be meeting on this bill and this
is a point here that I think you should consider. That information would
actually be provided to the committee, documented in the committee minutes and
so on, that a Member had a bit of input or a concern or a question or whatever
and some feedback into that process.
Again,
if we're going to be truly democratic, than I think that's really what we need
to do. So I encourage the Government House Leader, the committee and so on, as
you discuss these matters to – again, just to repeat and to clarify (a) for the
Estimates process to basically recognize formally what we've been doing
informally in terms of giving independent Members an opportunity to attend and
participate; also, to recognize formally a process whereby if you're going to be
reviewing the legislation, likewise, independent Members would be made aware of
the fact that this is happening, when it's happening, and given the opportunity
to either, (a), attend, or, (b), make a submission in writing through a letter,
an email or something to have feedback and input into that particular piece of
legislation. I think that would make for a much better process. It would be much
more democratic, and at the end of the day what we're looking to do is we're
looking to bring forth the best possible legislation.
As the
minister indicated himself when he spoke originally to this, we have seen bills
where things have happened that perhaps had it gone through this process, they
wouldn't have happened. I think that it's a very valuable exercise for sure, and
the more we can do to work together, be more inclusive of all Members, more
input, it's good for democracy, it's good for legislation and, ultimately, it's
good for the people who all elected us to be here.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
Is the
House ready for the question on Motion 1?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper, Motion 2, and I'll read it as follows:
THAT
Standing Order 63(2) be amended by deleting the words “new session” and
inserting instead the words “General Assembly;” and
THAT
this amendment have effect from the beginning of the 49th General Assembly.
I would
move that, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a chance to speak very briefly to another amendment being
brought to this House from the Standing Orders Committee, which we have talked
about on a number of occasions. So the funny thing is, reading this one, if you
were just to read it itself, it doesn't look like much. You're taking “new
session,” scratching it out and inserting the words “General Assembly” and it
will start from the 49th General Assembly.
So I'm
going to try to give some context as to what exactly that means, what will
happen and when it will happen. So I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, and I'm
not using a prop, but the reality is that this is the Standing Orders of this
House. When you look at Standing Order 63 that deals with Private Members' Day,
the layman's, or my version, if I were to explain to somebody that is not
familiar with the House, Standing Order 63 is the rule of the House that deals
with the day, every week when the House is open, whereby a private Member is
able to enter a resolution into this House to be debated by all sides.
Now,
some caveats to that, obviously, is that it is not binding. So again, it's not
like in Ottawa where – and again, this is a conversation we've had many times.
But the reality is that it's not binding, and they're not actually, as we see in
Ottawa where we've seen the backbenchers, as they're referred to, or private
Members actually bring forward bills that are debated and passed. And I give a
prime example of one: It was done by former MP Scott Andrews, and I can't tell
you what the name – it was C whatever; I can't remember the number – but it came
from –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Zachary's Bill.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Zachary's Bill.
And
that's a case where legislation was actually made in the House, brought forward
by a private Member, a Member who is not a Member of Cabinet. It was again
something that saw debate, saw questioning, saw Committee.
What
we're saying here, okay, so that's today and everybody sees it, the Member
stands up, reads it in and we figure out who's going to debate it. This week it
would've been, say, government, for example; next week is Opposition. Generally,
since I've been in here, which is going on just about eight years, you see it,
it starts every year, at the start of a new session, or the start of a General
Assembly, it starts off government one week, then Opposition, then government,
then Opposition, it goes to the NDP, the Third Party, comes back, and it goes
back and forth like that.
What
we've changed here, so the Standing Order 63(2) says: “At the beginning of a new
session the Speaker shall follow the custom of recognizing a Private Member's
motion from the Opposition side of the House on the first Private Members' Day.”
The Opposition can start off. So what we're doing is we're taking out, at the
beginning of a new session, we're scratching out new session. At the beginning
of a new General Assembly, so when the House is first convened, after an
election, and right now we're in the 48th General Assembly, so after there is a
general election and people come back to this House representing their
districts, it will be the 49th General Assembly. So this resolution is to amend
this Standing Order starting the next session.
What are
the practical effects of this wording change? The practical effect is that, in
reality, the House at any time – we know it has 40 Members. It previously had
48. At times before that, it had 52. But right now we have 40, and the reality
is that during this time, we see private Members' resolutions from government
Members, from Members of the Official Opposition and Members of the Third Party.
The
composition changes all the time. Government numbers go up, government numbers
go down. Official Opposition numbers go up and go down, the same with the Third
Party. In particular sessions, sometimes there are zero independent Members.
Sometimes, as there are now, there are three – probably one of the greatest
numbers of independent Members that I've seen.
The
reality is that the Standing Order, as applied now, in reality when the fact is
that the order is basically at the beginning of any new session, so when the
House comes back after – so not every four years but basically when the House
reopens again. So, we close down the House, there are spring sessions and fall
sessions, the actual reality is that independent Members often do not get an
opportunity to raise a private Member's resolution. It just doesn't happen and
it's a number's game. They just don't get that opportunity, once you go back and
forth. In order for them to get that opportunity, the session would have to go
on for an extended period of time.
One of
the things that's been brought up and that we've agreed to is that this Member –
all 40 of us represent our districts and especially when I look at the private
Member's resolution. Now, I have an opportunity sitting in a department where I
can bring forward resolutions and pieces of legislation to do with my
department.
I liked
the fact when I was in Opposition that I could bring up a resolution about an
important issue to me, or my district, or our caucus, or any particular group. I
enjoyed that. I still remember the first one I ever brought forward was for a
defined schedule for the House of Assembly, which did not go well. It did not go
well. The Government House Leader at the time was not supportive of that. It's
funny because I will constantly point this out when people talk about decorum in
this House, I can tell you now I have not seen one day since the beginning of
2016, before we ever sat here, any of these Members in this new session, I have
not seen one day where this House was as animated as perhaps the 10th most
animated day in the session previous.
I think
I could look at Members opposite and I don't know if they'll be able to
disagree, because the fact is it could pretty heated, pretty animated, heckling
was allowed. Again, I'm not here to have that argument because at the same time
I'm all for a good joke going back and forth. Sometimes that lightens the mood
of a very serious place, but that's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm
saying is that – I'll just talk about this current session. Members on both
sides, I think the fact is that we exercise passion and we exercise the ability
to debate and to disagree and to agree; but, I tell you what, anybody who says
that this session is not the most respectful has never watched the Legislature
in their life. I'll just say that. That's just an aside. And I'd also suggest
that they've never been to Ottawa, because that place is a whole different ball
game altogether, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I
come back to this. What's going to happen? When we vote on this resolution, the
fact is that private Members' resolutions will start at the beginning of the
next Assembly, the 49th General Assembly, and that decision was made by the
Standing Orders Committee just for the sake of ease, so we wouldn't confuse
matters. But the next session we'll start it, and that will continue on for the
length of that General Assembly.
So the
reality is that private Members will get an opportunity to enter a private
Member's resolution in this House regardless of stripe, independent, you name
it, everybody will get that opportunity. I'll also say that I think as a Cabinet
Member, sometimes what – not irritates me, but just because I'm in the
Department of Justice I have the ability to bring in Justice bills, but I have
district issues that are under Health or under Service NL. So the fact is, I
could stand up as a Member and bring a resolution when I want to talk about
something like that. We all have that right to bring that up.
But,
going back to the purpose of this, we're changing the Standing Orders yet again
to, I think, improve our Members' ability to bring forward resolutions in this
House. Now, is every resolution successful? No, they're not. Can we still
improve that debate? Possibly. Should we make it so that Members can stand up
and bring forward the opportunity to actually debate a bill or bring forward a
piece of legislation? I think we can work towards that. I think that is
something to aspire to and to strive to, but I think this is a step in the right
direction.
On that
note, I think I've tried my best to explain it. Like I say, I think it's a
positive change to our Standing Orders that will affect how private Members'
resolutions are handled in terms of the distribution. I think it's going to be
hard to disagree with this, but that being said – again, the reason it's going
to be hard to disagree is that this resolution, even though I'm the one to enter
it, was brought forward by consent, by unanimity amongst my Members of the
Standing Orders Committee, and that is Members of all sides.
Even
though he is not a Member of the Committee, I'm going to make an assumption that
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – who I will give credit to, I'll give
credit to, he speaks to these resolutions. He talks about some of the things
he'd like to see. Some I agree with, some I disagree with, that's neither here
nor there. What I will say is I have a feeling he's going to support this, and I
think this goes to some of the points that he has made in the past about his
ability to contribute in a meaningful fashion in this House.
On that
note, I'll take my seat and look forward to the commentary from Members
opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
this opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation and this changing of
Order 63(2), deleting of the words “new session” and inserting instead the words
“General Assembly.”
Mr.
Speaker, as we noted, this flows well with what we talked about earlier in the
committee structure. While this is not directly related to that, it does speak
very closely to the whole process of modernizing the Legislature here and
particularly making it more inclusive.
As the
minister outlined here, we're talking about, particularly, private Members'
resolutions with – while he outlined they're not binding by any way, shape or
form, but they do set a good template and they do get people thinking about what
pieces of legislation may need to be enacted or what policy should be adopted by
government to ensure that the needs of the electorate and the needs of the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are met. They can range from something in
health care, they can range from something around our culture. They can range to
getting an education, and it could be something around our structure. It could
be around a philosophical view.
It does
give an opportunity for private Members who may not get to speak to legislation,
for various reasons, or a particular piece of legislation, or be able to bring a
particular sequence or a particular angle to a piece of legislation or a policy,
or even a program in some cases, that would be relevant to either their own
particular understanding, their constituents' understanding, or the
understanding of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on something that needs
to be addressed. So we've had these discussions in the Standing Orders Committee
about how do we make it more inclusive for everybody.
While
the legislation, standing as it does, doesn't exclude an independent Member from
having access to it, the calendar structure unfortunately, restricts that. The
odds that it would ever happen with the number of people we have in the House of
Assembly and the rotation that goes back and forth between government and the
Opposition would dictate – in a normal sitting, you'd never get the opportunity
for an independent Member to be able to stand and present a private Member's
resolution.
So as we
move forward – and as I mentioned earlier on the Standing Orders Committees and
how we're going to use those, and the committees of the Legislature, this is
another piece of reforming our operations. Again, it just happened to be a
particular nuance.
I don't
think somebody set out 30 years ago, or whenever this piece of legislation was
last updated, to say we want to ensure that if there are independent Members,
they're not going to be able to get an opportunity to speak. I think when it was
put in play it was that every Member of the House of Assembly, from a private
Member's resolution point of view, would have that opportunity through the
sequence. It just may take a period of time.
Unfortunately, because of the other parts of the policy itself, the Standing
Order, when we rotate back and forth between parties, the independents would
never get an opportunity during that sitting period. So what we talked about
was, how do we do that? And I give credit to the House of Assembly staff who did
some research, did a jurisdictional scan and came back with some areas have it
open for that General Assembly, that period of time. So in a four-year cycle,
even with 40 Members and using the process back and forth, eventually you would
get back to independent Members having an opportunity to be given that chance to
present a private Member's resolution.
As the
minister talked about here, we've made great strides in the last three years in
moving things forward around modernizing the House of Assembly and making it
more inclusive. We've made great strides in reinterpreting policies or Standing
Orders that were put there, that now may reflect a different structure within
the House of Assembly. As we talk here now, having a number of sitting
independents and their opportunity to be able to be fully engaged, as anybody
else in this House, within the process of debate, and in this particular case, a
private Member's resolution.
So we've
had that discussion and we've come to a consensus. We've come to a consensus
based on what's fair for one should be fair for all. While we do realize,
obviously, a majority in numbers in particular parties have an influence on the
number of times you get to do it, that shouldn't disregard the fact that every
Member here should have an opportunity within a sitting. We've managed to find
that with the help of the staff, a way that this can be done without disrupting
the normal process in the House of Assembly to ensure everybody has that
opportunity.
I could
speak more to it, but it's something that there was never any debate about doing
it. It was just about finding the right mechanism that would make it inclusive
to be able to do and wouldn't jeopardize something else within a Standing Order.
So we found something that's very workable, and, in this case, it just means
changing the wording. And the wording then is very easily interpreted to the
General Assembly.
In any
normal period of time you would have close to four years, which would give you
roughly seven – eight in some cases – sittings of the House of Assembly. So you
would hope in that period of time, Members who may sit as independents will have
that opportunity to also present a private Member's resolution.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to note that, and say again that we would wholeheartedly
support that. This is another move forward in modernizing how we operate and
making this whole House of Assembly inclusive for all Members.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure to speak to this motion as well. Obviously, I'll be
supporting it, and I say I'll be supporting it because I actually wrote a letter
to the actual Speaker approximately two years ago and I recommended this exact
resolution. I recommended that it be done because of the issue that has been
described, that I encountered personally. So I'm very pleased that the
government and the Committee are going to be implementing this. As has been
said, by making at the Assembly as opposed to a particular sitting of the House,
it'll give every Member, in four years, every single Member would have the
opportunity at least once to bring forth a private Member's resolution and
that's what it's supposed to be all about; about ensuring that all Members are
able to fully participate in the democratic process. So, I am very pleased to
see this come forward.
Another
thing that I did write the Speaker about to have referred to the Standing Orders
Committee, related to this, actually, as well, and I just throw it out there
just for the information of the House and so on, is that I think that in
addition to this, personally I would like to see the inflammatory language
associated sometimes to these resolutions, that that would be removed.
Because
quite often I've seen in the past where if it's the Opposition bringing in a
resolution, private Members sometimes: WHEREAS the government is doing a
terrible job with this, where they failed miserably with that, and blah, blah,
blah; therefore be it resolved …. On the same token, sometimes you'll see
government resolutions in the past that have sort of been praising government:
WHEREAS the government has done a great job with this and a great job with that;
therefore be it resolved they continue the great work they're doing, whatever.
I think
if you got rid of all those WHEREASes on both sides of that equation, it would
make for a better debate and we wouldn't be starting off in a position where
we're already sort of at odds or taking sides in a particular resolution. That
would be good to see. Also, I think this whole notion of another thing that
happens, which I think, personally, would be good to see if that was gone, and
this whole idea of amending private Members' motions. Like if you don't like the
private Member's motion, vote it down. If you support it, vote for it; if you
don't support it, vote it down. But quite often we've seen private Members'
motions come forward where there was a motion made and then the other side would
make an amendment to it that really changed the whole intent of the motion to
begin with, and I'm not sure that does anything for the process, either. I think
that the motion should be made, and then you either support it or you don't
support it, one or the other.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I just threw that in there because it is related to
private Members' motions, but certainly this is a very welcomed change. I'm very
pleased to see once again the Committee, the government, obviously, supporting
it – they have the majority, which is important – and certainly all parties
supporting this and again doing something which is only going to improve the
democratic process in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We also
support this, and anything that can be done to improve the democratic deficit
that we do experience in our province is a welcomed addition. These changes –
the motion before this – are also very welcomed. And the more we can be
collaborative and inclusive in the work that we do in this House, in the work
that we do in committee rooms, in the work that we do in caucuses, the better it
is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the better it is for the
ways that we make our laws and our laws that govern how we work together, how we
live together, and how we plan our future. So anything in this line, Mr.
Speaker, is definitely a step in the right direction.
And I
know, I don't just believe, Mr. Speaker, I know that the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador want us to work together, they need us to work together and we all
need to do that. As a number of my colleagues have said before me, we've all
been elected. We've all been elected to represent the people who voted for us,
but not just the people who voted for us, we've all been elected to represent
the people in our districts.
I can
remember at times when I was first elected and when there was much more
animosity, a lot more heckling, I would think what is the point, and then the
thing that would sort of ground me here in this House was to remember and to
imagine that all the people whose doors we've all knocked on, whose stories
we've heard, that's why we're here in this House. We're here in this House to do
the work of the people. I welcome any changes again that address the democratic
deficits that we do experience here in the province. So this motion has our full
support.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
Is the
House ready for the question on Motion 2?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 59.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources that Bill 59, An Act To Amend The
Interpretation Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 59 entitled, An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act.” (Bill 59)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and speak to this piece of legislation, which does emanate
from the Department of Justice and Public Safety. It's funny because similar to
the other resolutions that we've talked to today, this piece of legislation, to
me, it's just my take on it, when you look at the bill's name on the Order Paper
and you look at the Interpretation Act,
it's sort of ambiguous as to, well, what is an
Interpretation Act. What does that mean? What does it do?
It's
funny because we have the act and then we have these amendments that are being
made to the act, which are actually very specific in my mind as it relates to
we're trying to correct an issue that we experienced with access to information.
I'll go through the genesis of how this ended up here today and who should we
thank for it, and why I think it's obviously a good thing. But I just wanted to
give that sort of preamble, similar to what we've done here today, we talked
about one resolution that seemed to mean something about something else, and
this is very similar.
So we
have here today an amendment to the
Interpretation Act which is Bill 59. Again, it's not a huge amendment.
Basically paragraph 27(1)(l) of the
Interpretation Act will be repealed and the following substituted. What's
happening is it's defining the word “holiday.” So holiday means every Sunday,
New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Memorial Day or Canada Day, Labour
Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.
Now
before people think that I'm just going to go through and just read off this
piece of legislation, that's not the plan. I'm just explaining what a holiday
means here. It means the birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the
celebration of the birth of the reigning sovereign. A day appointed by an act of
the Parliament of Canada or a proclamation of the Governor General or of the LG
for a day of general prayer or mourning, or day of public rejoicing or
thanksgiving. In a particular municipality, other than the City of St. John's
and the Town of Harbour Grace, one day in each year, which the council of that
municipality may fix as a public holiday.
In the
City of St. John's, the day in each year ultimately determined, in the manner
prescribed by custom, for the St. John's Annual Regatta. In the Town of Harbour
Grace, the day in each year ultimately determined, in the manner prescribed by
custom, for the Harbour Grace Annual Regatta;
Section
27 of the act is amended by adding immediately after subsection: Notwithstanding
paragraph (1)(l), where a holiday, other than a holiday referenced in
subparagraph falls on a Sunday, the term “holiday” includes the following day.
So,
somebody who were just to take this bill and read it without having any idea
what it means will say okay, you're talking about a holiday; how does that
apply? Somebody could look at well, what is the
Interpretation Act – and I'm going to give some credit here because
I get to stand up and talk about the bill but, as I've said on numerous
occasions, it's the people up the department that are not often seen that do all
the heavy lifting. And in this particular case, I want to thank Kendra Wright,
one of our ADMs, because she gave me a great line to explain the
Interpretation Act. Her line was the
Interpretation Act is a code for
interpreting all provincial legislation.
This is
a code to be used when looking at other legislation. When she put that down in
writing and I read it, I said that makes sense because I was trying to figure
out how do I explain what it means without getting too convoluted and perhaps
confusing even myself.
While
most provincial statutes have a definition section, it's obviously impossible to
define everything. That is impossible. So a lot of times you'll take a
particular term or word that's found in multiple pieces of legislation and that
is found in the Interpretation Act.
So, this act will apply to various pieces of legislation.
For
instance, holiday is something that you could see in different pieces of
legislation, especially when you talk about holiday, if something were to fall
on a business day, if something were to fall on the House Sitting day, there's a
whole different range. Again, there are multiple definitions that can be used
like that.
In this
particular case, holiday is especially important when it comes to one of the
main reasons we are redoing this today, which is when it comes to our ATIPPA
coordinators who, when it comes to getting ATIPP requests in, getting the
information and putting it back out, they fall within very strict schedules and
it has to be defined how those schedules work.
Bill 59,
this bill that we're debating today, proposes to clean up the definition of
holiday and to include those holidays that are set out in what's called the
Shops' Closing Act. Now, this is
interesting stuff that I never realized and I do think it's genuinely
interesting. The definition of holiday in this House has been without an
amendment since 1970. So, we haven't amended that since some time ago. In fact,
I would go back to that would actually be Premier Smallwood would have been in
office, I think, back in 1970 if I recall my history correctly. That's quite a
time ago. We're on the 13th premier; this was amended back during the time of
the first.
It
recognizes Easter Monday, which is no longer defined as a holiday, so that's not
there. It does not recognize three holidays observed in the province. So, as I
just read off, Canada Day, Thanksgiving Day and Boxing Day, not recognized
previously, will be recognized now, and it references Armistice Day, which is
now obviously referred to, or recognized as, Remembrance Day.
So those
are, I think, pretty substantial changes where there's sometimes some confusion
over what is a holiday, what is not, what falls under Shops' Closing. Now, we're
going to change this definition, and going forward we'll have an updated
reference, and I'll tell you why that's important when it comes to the ATIPP Act
2015. So, under that act, a request comes in for information, and we all know
the history behind that particular act and what was before that and before that,
and we've even had questions during Question Period on access to information
requests and the provision of information.
ATIPP
coordinators have 20 business days to process a request for public bodies. So
somebody puts the request in, they have 20 business days in which to get it
done, and to get it processed. I got to tell you, people think that this
information is just snap the fingers and it's done; it's not. It is not. It
requires onerous, onerous work to be completed by these individuals, and usually
each department has an ATIPP coordinator. So an ATIPP coordinator will reach
out, say this is the request that's in, this is the information I'm looking for,
that involves checking through databases and checking through people's emails,
texts, you name it.
And some
requests are very specific; I'm looking for (a), and what does (a) mean? But
some people come and say I'm looking for (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)
everything – some of these requests can be a piece of paper, some can be tens of
thousands of pieces of paper, which then must be gone through to see if
exclusions apply, because there is some information that should not be released
for various reasons. They should be excluded. Does it infringe on somebody's
privacy? Does it fall under one of the certain exclusions, which are
encapsulated in ATIPPA 2015?
So,
ATIPPA 2015 defines a business day as a day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or a
holiday. Okay, so we get that. Saturday, Sunday or holiday is not a business day
But holiday, as you could tell there, was not completely defined. There were
things that had changed. So, we always would go back to the
Interpretation Act. What does the
Interpretation Act say that a holiday
is?
So we
were looking at an act that was listing a holiday, and what were the holidays
back in 1970? The outdated definition, and obviously quite outdated –
almost 50 years – can have a consequence for an ATIPP coordinator, because we
already know that they are facing perhaps greater pressure than they've faced in
history in terms of when you look at the sheer number of requests, the sheer
volume of data that's put back out. It's higher now than it's ever been. Higher
requests and, again, the turnaround are very well documented. And if they don't
meet that turnaround, that has implications and it has consequences – one of
them being that they can often be called out or the department called out by the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
This amendment will assist ATIPP coordinators to process
requests per the legislative timelines. It will also apply to staff in the
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner who are also subject to short
legislated timelines. So you can think about it, you look at some of these days,
you look at the act might be ambiguous, you look at the
Interpretation Act there might be
something different, and we might only be talking about a day or two, but that's
enough for somebody to contravene the ATIPP Act and that's enough to set off a
chain of events that nobody wants to see. They're already under enough pressure,
and they don't need to deal with the grief that comes with the misinterpretation
of a clause, which is in no fault of their own.
The question becomes: How did we end up here talking about
this? Well, the fact is that I also happen to be the minister responsible for
ATIPPA, and after taking that over – which again, that changed some time in, I
think, 2017 – I sat down with the ATIPPA coordinators from all across
government, wanting to have a general chat. Why don't you guys tell me some of
the pressures you face? What are some of the things that we can do? What are
some of the things that we can change? We tabulated the list. We compiled a
list. Some things require substantive change; some require significant financial
investment and some were simply a legislative change.
We're still working on that. So the credit for this change
goes right to those ATIPP coordinators who said this is something that can help
everybody, that can help clarify the act, can clarify our job, can make the
lives easier of everybody that's dealing with this. And it's a simple change
that requires a legislative amendment, which we're here doing now.
So what I would suggest is, again, this is a positive move.
I don't think anybody's going to have a disagreement. In fact, one could say
that this is housekeeping in nature, and that's fine and dandy. But again, I
wanted to give an opportunity to provide some context as to why we're changing
this, to why we're here. I can say that the Information and Privacy Commissioner
was consulted on this change and is supportive of this change.
Now, I
will say that, depending on where this goes, I don't think this will be a
wide-ranging debate on ATIPPA 2015. I think I've stayed within the realm of the
amendment that's been proposed. An ATIPPA debate could take days, as we've all
seen in the past.
What
I'll say is this was an issue that was identified by the coordinators within the
department who do tremendous work, and I'd like to thank them for what they do
because they do a lot of work under pretty tight timelines. A lot of pressure, a
lot of information, reaching out, relying on other people to help them do their
job, which can be difficult. So I want to thank them.
I also
want to thank the staff that made this happen. The Legislative Counsel, my ADM –
again, coming back to this, providing me a great line. I want to thank Kendra
Wright, the ADM, because really this is code to help determine what legislation
says and means, and that's something that I think is good for us all to know.
On that
note, I will take my seat and look forward to the debate by my colleagues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
pleased today to speak to Bill 59, the
Interpretation Act. The Minister of Justice went through in some detail in
regard to the particular bill, Bill 59, An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act,
and highlighted some of the necessity in the particular bill and what's
represented in that.
So what
we're looking at here with this particular bill is to amend the definition of
holiday in the Interpretation Act. The
purpose of that is to look at bringing the definition in the
Interpretation Act closer in line with
the definition in the Shops' Closing Act,
which is another piece of legislation, and provide clarity when other pieces of
legislation reference the term holiday. Now, the minister in his discussion,
too, went through and talked about ATIPPA and a particular necessity to have
some continuity in referencing it and have some general guidelines set in regard
to how it's referenced.
In the
actual Interpretation Act, there are a
number of definitions for terms that are found frequently throughout the
legislation within the province. If a specific act often does not define a term,
then the definition contained within the Interpretation Act will apply. With this piece of legislation with
the bill, it's almost like a reference piece of legislation where a definition
is required that you can go back and find it under the
Interpretation Act. So this particular bill is going to deal with
that.
Often
the definition of holiday within the
Interpretation Act, as the minister has referenced when he had discussion
here in second reading, is used in a context of the ATIPPA and legislation which
governs civil and criminal law. And the definition of holiday in that context
that's continued in the Interpretation Act
governs when court orders or documents can be served.
It's
certainly relevant in regard to the civil and criminal law, and execution of
that and how it's governed. So what we're doing here today is updating the
definition of holiday to make it easier to read, for clarity – we talked about –
and also to bring it more in line, as we said, with the
Shops' Closing Act.
The
minister went through in some detail in specifics in regard to the actual
statutory holidays and how it relates back to a holiday, as referenced as a
statutory holiday, and how that is defined in the
Interpretation Act. The definition of holiday will be amended, or
what's being proposed here in the actual bill through specific sections of it.
Sundays, this is referenced as a holiday and contained in the current act. We'll
look at New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Memorial Day or Canada Day,
Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and
these holidays, as well, will be updated to reflect in the
Shops' Closing Act.
Subsections 3 and 4, the birthday of a sovereign and a day of mourning or of
public rejoicing, Thanksgiving, of that nature. These clauses are enabling
legislation that are in line with similar acts, both federally and in other
provinces. Oftentimes, our particular legislation could be related to employment
legislation, labour standards and those types of things.
So when
there's reference to statutory holidays, they could infringe on other acts, both
of a federal and provincial nature. That's why when we look at the
Interpretation Act and what we're
doing here today, that definition of a statutory holiday could be linked to
other pieces of legislation. Once again, the issue of refining that, providing
the clarity and also to bring it in line with the
Shops' Closing Act.
Sections
5, 6 and 7 look at municipal and civic holidays. These clauses allow for things
like Regatta Day in St. John's, Harbour Grace regatta day, and allow for one day
each year in other municipalities for recognition of a particular civic holiday.
This is a new addition or a new add-on to the
Interpretation Act and, again, as I said before, to bring it in line
with the Shops' Closing Act.
I think
the minister referenced this as well in regard to some of us often refer to as
floating holidays. The four being St. George's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Discovery
Day and Orangeman's Day are not considered holidays in the current legislation
or the Shops' Closing Act. These
holidays are defined as, or referenced as provincial government holidays for
employees and are created through the collective agreements with the unions.
So
that's another issue in regard to – you're talking about statutory holidays or
floating days or those types of things. They could be relevant to provincial
legislation, provincial employment legislation and collective agreements, either
of a provincial or federal nature. So, once again, these would be defined
outside of the Shops' Closing Act and
would be floating holidays and would be referenced, as I said, with collective
agreements and how they're defined.
The
general intent as defined in the act is to, as I said before, amend the
Interpretation Act and ensuring the
definition of holiday includes the holidays set out in the
Shops' Closing Act. It brings clarity and continuity to the
definitions and how it is subsequently defined in provincial legislation. Again,
as I referenced, there could be a connection at times based on the piece of
legislation with federal legislation, but also provides clarity on that issue as
well.
Bill 59
is a needed piece of legislation for that purpose, and we'll certainly support
the legislation as it's moved through debate and through Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and to speak to Bill 59, the
Interpretation Act. The Minister of
Justice and my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, have very clearly outlined
what some of the issues are in this act. It's a bit of a housekeeping act in
some ways.
What
this bill will do is it will amend the
Interpretation Act to ensure that the definition of holiday includes the
holidays set out in the Shops' Closing Act.
Sometimes people get a little bit confused about really what is
Shops' Closing Act and what are holidays. What it is doing is, among
other things, it lists the definitions of commonly used words and terms in
legislations and regulations.
The
Shops' Closing Act was found to be out
of sync with the definition in the
Interpretation Act. The Shops' Closing
Act includes these holidays: Easter Sunday, Labour Day – and the
Shops' Closing Act means that all retail offices and offices of
business, the offices here within government, they're all closed. It is a
holiday. So, Easter Sunday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day – which is
November 11, or Armistice Day – Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Good
Friday, Victoria Day, Memorial Day or Canada Day, July 1 – which is very
interesting, Mr. Speaker. Today is the 70th anniversary of Confederation where
Canada joined Newfoundland and Labrador – let's get that straight.
For us,
in Newfoundland and Labrador, it's a very difficult day because it's the
anniversary of Beaumont-Hamel, where so many of our, mostly, young men were
killed. It's also a day where people across Canada celebrate the fact of Canada
as a country.
It's a
very difficult day for us because in the morning we remember Beaumont-Hamel. We
mourn. We have a parade. We go to the War Memorial. Many of us go to the Legions
in our district and also go to the Field of Honour. It's an odd thing that
happened, Mr. Speaker, because it didn't have to be that way. We were already
part of Confederation before Canada Day was established. One would've hoped
that, in fact, Canada would have recognized that. They could've picked any day,
and they chose July 1. It's still very much a sore spot for many of us.
The
Interpretation Act is defining holiday
as every Sunday, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, the
birthday or the day appointed for the celebration of the birth of the reigning
sovereign, Labour Day, Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, Christmas Day and a day
appointed by an act of the Parliament of Canada or by proclamation of the
Governor General or the Lieutenant-Governor for a day of a general prayer or day
of mourning or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving or a public holiday, and
whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the expression holiday, includes the
following day. So we see that, for instance, if November 11 was a holiday and it
falls on a day other than a holiday, or on a Sunday, then the next day is a
holiday, so we get both those days.
Under
this new amendment we're losing a few holidays: Armistice Day and Easter Monday.
That falls in line with a lot of other provinces in the country, but it adds the
civic holidays for municipalities, and municipalities really find those holidays
very important. In particular, a municipality, other than the City of St. John's
and the Town of Harbour Grace, one day in each year which the council of that
municipality may fix as a public holiday.
It's
great that the municipalities have the authority, then, to designate what that
day will be, making it more appropriate for the conditions of their own
municipality. It makes a lot of sense. For St. John's it's Regatta Day and for
Harbour Grace it's the annual regatta in Harbour Grace.
There
were also four floating holidays. Many of us are really happy to get them, but
not everybody gets them. They are St. George's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Discovery
Day and Orangeman's Day, and most people in the private sector don't get those
holidays so they're not included in the act.
One of
the interesting points is that under the
Judicature Act, a person cannot be served; not be served in a restaurant,
but cannot be served through the
Judicature Act because it's a holiday.
One of
the things that is kind of important is when we look at what happened on the
federal level, Bill C-369 was a private Member's motion by an NDP MP asking to
honour the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The intention of that bill
was to create a statutory holiday on September 30 each year, starting this year,
and this delivers a call to action 80 that was issued by the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. The title of the report:
Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, conveys the depth
of the tragedy and the need for action. So this came about as one of the Calls
to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, we may be up for another national holiday, the National Day for
Truth and Reconciliation. That was first introduced in the House of Parliament,
federally, March 20, 2018 by the federal Member for
Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, Saskatchewan, and it passed on February 28,
2019. The bill, as presented by the Member, said: “My bill proposes that June 21
be designated a day to honour and recognize the unique culture and views of
first nations, Inuit, and Métis status and non-status peoples and the
contributions they have made to our collective society.” It said that the
commission itself for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called “upon the
federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a
statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour
Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration
of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital” issue in our
country. So, Mr. Speaker, we will see that it remains a vital component of the
reconciliation process.
That
private Member's motion was about furthering and honouring the reconciliation
process. There was multi-party support for this bill and the bill passed. So we
will see how that will roll out as a national holiday, and one, I believe, that
is well warranted and needed.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a moment to speak to Bill 59, An Act to Amend the Interpretation
Act.
Obviously, I'll be supporting this bill. There's certainly nothing here that is
really out of the ordinary. It's very much a housekeeping bill bringing in line
the definition of a holiday in line with the
Shops' Closing Act. As the minister
has said, the impetus for this relates to the ATIPPA legislation, but I guess it
could relate to other pieces of legislation because really we're defining what
holiday means in any piece of provincial legislation. So it provides clarity in
that regard.
In terms
of the ATIPPA piece, I can see why that would be an issue, because when it comes
to the ATIPPA legislation there are some pretty strict guidelines in terms of
timing and so on for applications to be submitted and for answers to be
received, and the different stages in the process are very time sensitive. So
it's important that, in doing so, we ensure that the legislation reflects quite
clearly what happens in the event of a holiday and understanding what exactly a
holiday means.
Other
Members have read out the holidays and so on, so I'm not going to take time to
do that. We all know what they are now, but there was one thing that I noticed
just out of pure, I suppose, curiosity from my part, something maybe I didn't
realize. It says that one of the holidays, the third definition: “the birthday
or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birth of the
reigning Sovereign.”
Right
now, the 24th of May weekend is known as Victoria Day. I'm guessing, maybe I'm
wrong, that the sovereign would be Queen Victoria, I'm assuming. We have Queen
Elizabeth now, at some point in time we're going to have maybe King Charles or
whatever. It talks about the reigning sovereign, so I find that definition a
little bit confusing, although I think we all know what it means. It means the
24th of May weekend, but I wonder if there was a new sovereign, a new King,
perhaps, and his birthday fell in some other time of the year, would we lose the
24th of May weekend? I don't know if a lot of people would be happy about that
happening.
That
being said, as a little side note, I will be supporting the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close the
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the commentary and support from Members opposite. I have to tell the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands that I also read that when I was going
through. I think what it is, is that day has not changed, obviously. We have
gone to a different sovereign from the one that we current recognize. I think
it's the ability to change that that is there. The choice has not been made to
change that. It has stayed the same. It's stayed on that particular time, that
particular sovereign. That's my assumption on that.
It
allows for it to be changed depending on whether that decision came from orders
from up above, we'll say. I answer that now so I won't have to do it during the
Committee stage.
What I
will do is I will take my seat, thank my colleagues for their time and look
forward to the Committee stage of this bill.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 59 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Interpretation Act. (Bill 59)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
59)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 59.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act.” (Bill 59)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
minister mentioned in his discussion in second reading about the ATIPP
legislation and using the definition of holiday as per the
Interpretation Act. This means that the timelines do not follow a
government business day.
So I'm
just wondering is there any impact in relation to the definition with something
like the ATIPPA coordinators in regard to using the definition that we're now
going to use. Is there any delay with ATIPP in regard to the change in
definition?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I appreciate the
question; it's a good question. My understanding is that there's no delay here.
It's about alleviating some concern over ambiguity caused by the difference in
some of the days as previously listed. So it's not a delay thing, it's about
trying to make sure that we're not getting 19 days, 20 days, 21 days in that
situation.
And I
would suggest that when I talked to the coordinators about it, this is one of
the first things that they brought up because I think it had been causing an
issue for some time.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having
passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 59.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill
59.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 59 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 59 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
referenced earlier in debate when we talked about the proceedings, normally we
would have to wait a full day but with leave we can have consent to do a third
reading of a bill once we've passed the substantive stage. So, at this point, I
would ask my colleagues if they would have any issue with leave to do third
reading of Bill 59.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe you have leave,
Sir. Please proceed.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I thank you and I thank the
sunny day out that seems to have lifted everybody's spirits here in this House
which is a nice thing.
Mr.
Speaker, thanks to my colleagues I would call from the Order Paper third reading
of Bill 59.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 59, An Act to Amend the
Interpretation Act be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act. (Bill 59)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Interpretation Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 59)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the
hour of the day and the weather outside I would move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the 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.'
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.
Thank
you.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.