March
1, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 61
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 5, Bill 68, and I further move that the said
bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It
is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have
leave to introduce Bill 68, and that the said bill shall now be read a first
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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 5, carried. (Bill 68)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 5. (Bill 68)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 68 has now been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second
time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would call Order 3, third reading of Bill 67.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 67, An
Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read the 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.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act. (Bill 67)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 67 has now been 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 Public Safety Act, read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 67)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would call Order 4, second reading of Bill 66.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, it's the early hour of the morning; I'm going to grab my
notes here. I'm going to borrow the Minister of Justice's book. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that
Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 3, be now read the
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill 66 be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration
Act No. 3. (Bill 66)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an honour to stand in the House on this early Wednesday morning, for what
is the first debate in the House on a morning session under this government.
It's exciting to be participating in the new Standing Orders for the House, in
particular those that recognize
the importance of the travel that many of my colleagues have to make and
also the family commitments that many of us also have in this House. So it's a
pleasure, and I want to congratulate the Members of the House that worked on the
new Orders and say it's exciting to be the first one to speak this morning.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 66, which is An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act No.
3, is a result of work that our government is doing on the area of our
commitment on multi-year grant funding. As I said earlier, I'm very pleased to
stand in the House today to discuss the amendments regarding pre-commitments of
these multi-year grant funding that we want to put in place for community-based
organizations.
Mr.
Speaker, providing a commitment of multi-year funding to community groups is a
commitment of The Way Forward and as a
means to provide better services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who
rely on community organizations for further enhanced support.
I'm
pleased to stand here today to begin that process of fulfilling the commitment
that we made as part of our election platform and also the work that we've done
in the last year to begin the process of implementing a multi-year grant funding
program.
Mr.
Speaker, the pre-commitment of multi-year grant funding for those organizations
will allow for greater certainty in financial planning for those organizations,
and it will provide both the organization and the provincial government the
opportunity to do more long-term planning when it comes to those financial
commitments.
Pre-commitment, though, while not a specifically defined term in the
legislation, is the ability to enter into an agreement to obtain goods or
services in a current year for delivery and payment in subsequent fiscal years.
And currently, as Members of this House would certainly be aware of, under the
Financial Administration Act the
ability to pre-commit funds is restricted to agreements that are exchange in
nature, agreements that involve the purchase of goods and the purchase of
services. For example, government departments require a pre-commitment of funds
for leasing space when the lease duration expands multiple fiscal years.
As
Members of this House would have seen yesterday, I tabled some documents that
were commitments around multi-year funding arrangements related to the purchase
of services and goods such as leases and, as is required, we table those
documents in the House.
Grant
funding, specifically though, is considered a non-exchange transaction, as there
isn't really a direct return of a good or a service. Therefore, under the
current legislation, the ability for the province to commit to grant funding
beyond the current fiscal year is actually prohibited.
So the
inability to commit to grant funding for subsequent fiscal years has been
identified as an obstacle to financial planning for community organizations that
rely heavily on provincial government funding for their ongoing operations.
And let
me say right now, Mr. Speaker, we're going to change that. The government is
listening to the concerns of community-based organizations and to this effect we
are amending the Financial Administration
Act to allow for multi-year grant funding agreements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Everybody is really
enthusiastic this morning, I can see.
This
will allow for community-based organizations to receive enhanced financial
stability leading to greater consistency in staffing and staff recruitment, and
help in long-term planning to allow for a focus on service delivery.
Community-based organizations are defined as organizations that are
representative of a community or a significant segment of a community and are
engaged in meeting the social, wellness, educational, cultural, environmental,
economic and community development or public safety needs of a community.
The lack
of multi-year funding commitment to these organizations jeopardizes staff
stability, staff recruitment, long-term planning and ultimately the community as
a whole. And community-based organizations are often relied upon to deliver
important services to the communities and individuals they serve. Providing this
degree of stability through the multi-year contracts will allow these
organizations to better focus their efforts on delivery of these services.
Mr.
Speaker, organizations applying for the multi-year community grant program must
be community-based, and funding is for a maximum of three years with the ability
for groups to reapply. Eligibility criteria for the multi-year community grant
program will also require groups to have been in operation for a minimum of
three years and remain in good standing with the provincial government from a
financial and performance perspective, as well as maintain an active presence in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to take the opportunity now to speak in a little bit more
detail about the specifics of the amendments that we're making today we're
asking the House to approve today, I should say and provide a little bit more
technical detail as to the reasons that the
Financial Administration Act needs to
be amended.
As I
have said earlier, pre-commitment, while not specifically termed in legislation,
is an operational term used to denote the ability to enter into an agreement to
obtain goods and services for delivery and payment in a subsequent fiscal year.
The ability to authorize such pre-commitments stems from section 26.4 of the FAA
the Financial Administration Act
which provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on a written recommendation
of Treasury Board, to authorize government departments to enter into such
contractual arrangements.
Subsection 26.4(a) and (b) further note that this authorization is contingent
upon the payment resulting from the agreement coming due to a subsequent fiscal
year and that the minister, deputy minister, or other officer charged with the
administration of the relevant head of expenditure or subhead of expenditure
reports that are referenced in the Estimates books, that in their opinion it is
necessary to make the arrangement at that time.
Based on
the current wording in the Financial
Administration Act, this ability to pre-commit funding for subsequent fiscal
years is restricted, as I said earlier, to agreements that are exchange in
nature, in that they involve the purchase of a good or a purchase of a service.
Grant
funding is considered a non-exchange transaction, as there is no direct return
of a good or service to government as a result of providing the grand funding.
Therefore, the ability of government to commit to providing grant funding to an
organization, as I said earlier, beyond the current fiscal year is currently
prohibited under the Financial
Administration Act. And what we're doing today is making the amendment in
that act to allow for multi-year grant funding to be accepted as part of the
regulations under multi-year commitments under the FAA.
To
simplify administrative processes, departments will be encouraged to submit a
list of applicants requesting approval for multi-year funding within a year, and
we will be making those decisions between over the next year on the process.
But government's current inability to commit to multi-year funding because of
the FAA is an impediment to the process of multi-year funding, an impediment
that we intend, as I said earlier, to correct as part of this debate.
As I
said earlier, a community-based organization is defined as an organization that
is representative of the community or a significant segment of the community.
And a number of these organizations have indicated over the years that
multi-year funding provides them with an opportunity to do better planning,
better staff recruitment. It also allows them to work on multi-year strategic
plans with a certainty around their funding.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier this year we announced to the community sector a commitment for
core funding again for this year. Given the significant financial circumstances
that we find ourselves in in the provincial Treasury, we were very pleased to do
that early this year to provide stability to those community organizations who
would be worrying and wondering if their organization would be impacted as a
result of budget decisions. We felt it was important to take that concern away
and let those great organizations continue to do the good work that they do.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it would be fair for me to say as a Member of this House, and
on behalf of the Members in this House, that I think we all recognize the
significant contribution community organizations make to our community. Their
ability to be innovative, their ability to be able to create partnerships with
community organizations, to share infrastructure, to share resources, to be
creative in how to provide the services they need to provide and that they want
to provide by choice and by mandate is something I think that is a testament to
the innovation of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who really are able to
think about and implement ideas that result in incredible efforts being put
forward by these community organizations.
I think
everybody in this House would recognize the incredible work that the volunteers,
that the boards of directors, that the staff and the many stakeholders that
support our community organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador do. I
think it's a critical component of not only our social and educational fabric in
our community but more importantly, what we're known for as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
The good
work that these community organizations do I think is something that makes every
single one of us as MHAs, particularly in those situations where we work closely
with community organizations in our own districts, makes us extremely proud of
the work they do. I think everybody in this House would also agree that funding
for these organizations, having stability and having a clear idea of what the
core funding requirements would be over a three-year period would be something
that would be very beneficial to those organizations.
Mr.
Speaker, just to continue; as I said earlier, we currently do not have the
ability to implement multi-year funding, primarily because of the legislation
that's reflected here today, the issue with the
Financial Administration Act. At the same time, we are working
diligently to create a portal for community organizations to provide information
to streamline the application process for them, to take the time and
administrative burden away from the process for multi-year funding so that they
can focus on the needs of the community and the clients that they serve versus
the needs and wishes of an administrative bureaucracy that may be not the best
use of their resources. Certainly, we will continue to work on that over the
next year and look forward to working in partnership with community-based
organizations to identify and roll out our multi-year funding program as we've
committed.
Various
community organizations have provided feedback to government over the last
number of years and, through various consultations, these organizations have
communicated their desire to obtain multi-year funding arrangements with
government to allow the organizations to plan for the long term. In recent
years, some departments issuing grants to these organizations have issued
letters in advance of the budgetary process advising whether the grant funding
will be continued for the following fiscal year.
Mr.
Speaker, as you would, I'm sure with your long history and experience in
government, you'd certainly be aware that many departments in government provide
funding to community organizations and not only government departments directly,
but we also have agencies, boards and commissions that provide funding to
community organizations such as the regional health authorities.
This
lack of true multi-year funding commitment jeopardizes, as I said earlier, the
staff stability, staff recruitment, long-term planning for these organizations,
and these organizations are often relied upon to deliver critical services to
the communities and the individuals that they support.
Mr.
Speaker, the amendments that we're talking about today for the
Financial Administration Act, we're
also providing for administrative efficiencies, as I've said, for both the
organizations applying for multi-year grant and to the provincial government.
That will be the next phase of the multi-year grant program. Once we have the
FAA legislation adjusted to be able to allow us to provide multi-year funding,
we will begin the process of streamlining the administrative process for those
organizations that are applying for and have been receiving core funding from
government.
Ensuing
that the provincial government is running in the most efficient way possible
will ultimately also help us address the difficult financial situation that we
are facing. Mr. Speaker, as I've said, community-based organizations provide a
very important service to the people that they serve and to the province as a
whole, and the multi-year funding commitment of government is a
cross-departmental project that multiple departments are working on. And I'm
happy to be one of the ministers that's able to stand and speak to this
particular piece of legislation and also provide a little bit of visibility into
the view on multi-year funding and what's going to happen over the next 12 to 18
months as we begin the real important work of providing the administrative
infrastructure for organizations to apply, and also the certainty around the
three-year funding as we move into next year's budget.
Mr.
Speaker, it's been a pleasure to work with multiple ministers on this particular
project; it's still a very active project inside multiple departments and this
step today on the Financial Administration
Act provides us the opportunity to make a very substantial, albeit
administrative, but important adjustment to the
Financial Administration Act that will allow us to implement the
plans we have for multi-year funding over the next number of months and into
next year.
So I
look forward to hearing Members from both sides of the House today speak to this
particular piece of legislation and the amendment that we want to make, and I
look forward to answering any questions that the Members of the House have as we
work through this today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to Bill 66. As the minister
has outlined in regard to the intent of the amendment, or to the bill, it speaks
to An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act and it talks about the
pre-commitments to community-based organizations.
I guess
all of us here understand and recognize the role that many of the
community-based organizations play in the communities throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador, and the significant work they do. All governments, current and in
the past, have worked extensively with community-based groups in terms of the
work they do, and providing assistance through the Public Treasury to assist
them in the work they do, and they do great work oftentimes well all times,
certainly, relating to public policy of an administration and what that is as
they're implementing it.
The work
they do certainly complements the work that's done by others in particular
areas, whether that's with various advocacy groups, whether it's with seniors,
youth groups it's just a vast and a large array of groups that do that and do
great work.
So what
we're talking about here today is an amendment to the
Financial Administration Act to look at a process over a multi-year
period to grant funds, and that would be in advance of an upcoming fiscal year.
While, in general, we certainly support the concept, we do have some questions
and we'll go through, I guess, today in regard to what those would be and
getting some answers to some of those questions. We look at sections 9 and 26
and that would allow the granting of funds; an amendment to the act would allow
that to occur for multiple years.
As the
minister has indicated, for some of these groups that operate, when they look in
terms of administration or operations, what they need in terms of future years
in terms of their ability to operate and what that is, is certainly very
important to them. A lot of them could complement other funding that's coming
from the private sector, could come from other agencies and groups or could come
from fundraising. So it's good for them to be able to project over a period of
time what the requirements are for operation and having access to multi-year
funding, in some respects, could certainly assist that.
Section
9 allows the regulations to be prescribed by Cabinet. My understanding is that
we don't have or haven't seen the regulations in regard to what would follow
this and what the details would be. Again, I think we'll talk further in regard
to the definition of community groups or community organizations and what that
means and what's the ability to expand that if government, through Cabinet, has
the ability to do that. So that's certainly an issue that we want to discuss
further.
Section
26 allows Cabinet, upon the recommendation of Treasury Board, to pre-commit
grants in advance of the fiscal year. The other question is in that year that
the decision is made in regard to the amount of money that's being allocated for
multi-year funding, is it paid out in that fiscal year; is it paid out in
multiple years? If there's an estimates and budget process that goes on here in
the House and there's a figure that's identified for actual community groups,
which you don't know what that definition is yet, what is that amount and when
is it paid out?
Is there
an opportunity in a future year for a new group to come forward and to apply and
look for funding? But if it's already allocated over a three-year period, what's
the process for that group to possibly access funds to do the kind of things
they need to do? Because, in many cases, there could be new groups that are
developed that are identified. If they come forward in the second or third year,
is there opportunity for them to advance or to access funding? Or because the
three- year funding has been allocated, the multi-year, would they be unable to
do so? We need some information in regard to how that would work as well.
Currently, Cabinet can pre-commit spending related to goods and services. It
could be to infrastructure, those types of things that we'd done over multiple
years, but certainly cannot pre-commit outside of that. Obviously, what this is
looking at is expanding government's Cabinet, Treasury Board's ability to make
the pre-commitment to these grants over a period of time.
As well,
across government now the word grant is used. Grant is used in areas like this
in terms of community groups. There are also grants in regard to, or can be, on
the economic development, on the business side of things. Certainly, with the
health authorities there are term grants. We need some clarification in regard
to what that means. That reverts to the definition of community groups and how
that's actually defined.
I spoke
of the regulations that we haven't seen yet. I don't think I just want to
thank the staff who gave the briefing to the Opposition staff in regard to this,
but at that time there was no indication of what would be contained in the
regulations or a copy of those or anything of that nature.
I think
it was referenced that the organizations for multi-year funding must be
community based and funding would be for a maximum of three years, and I guess
groups can reapply. So as you get to your second or third year or some period, I
guess you'd reapply to look to be extended again for an additional three years
or three years or less. I guess we'll need details on how all that would work.
An
organization must have been in operation for three years, in good standing
financially and performance-wise, and maintain an active presence in the
province. That gets the whole issue of community groups, what they do, how they
interact with various government policies and provide a service to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, there's an accountability factor to it in
terms of what they do and must meet the needs in the province related to various
activities. That's certainly understandable.
I
understand, too, from the information we got there were some jurisdictional
scans done in other provinces and what they do in regard to this type of
funding, this type of pre-commitment. Some have pre-commitment of grants in
legislation and some don't. So there are some references to specific grants in
particular legislation and others do not.
So, as I
said before, there are various departments, various grant mechanisms within
various departments and I guess through this process we'll have to identify, or
we'll hear from the minister in regard to: Is there going to be an integration
of all those grants from various departments? Is this now going to fall under
one entity? How would these flow? Certainly, we're looking forward to seeing an
explanation on that.
As we go
forward, we'll have some questions in regard to, as I said before, the
definition of grants and what community group actually means under this
amendment. But as I said before, the regulations we haven't seen. So we'd
certainly like to see those and see what the content of them would be because
you're investing greater authority in the Treasury Board and in the Cabinet to
make these decisions. But not knowing these definitions, not knowing the
parameters, how do they get amended? Can they get amended in regulation? If they
can get amended in regulation that means they never come back to this House.
So we
don't know. You want to be open and transparent in regard to that. It's good to
know in the regulation exactly what it says, what the definitions are, what the
parameters are. And if changes are to be made to it, once we vote on the
amendments of the legislation, how does that come about and what's the authority
of Cabinet to make changes in the regulations.
As I
said, organizations apply for multi-year funding and then can reapply. The
concept, as I said, in terms of what we're talking about, seems to be
acknowledged. It seems to be certainly, we have heard, and I know my time in
dealing with community groups in terms of stability, budgeting and those types
of things, the concept, yes, I think would be helpful from discussions I've had
and most of us here know that in terms of dealing with various groups.
The
regulations, as I said, I've not seen them yet. Government is asking the House
to give Cabinet the go ahead, I guess, to make these regulations. We haven't
seen any evidence of them; what may be contained in them. As I said, the Finance
Minister later in debate maybe can give us some idea of what would be in the
draft regulations. Let us see the draft regulations before they're finalized,
and that would give some broader understanding in terms of what the details of
this would be as we move forward in multiple years and give us an idea of what
that would be.
As well,
in the briefing I understand there was talk in regard to pre-commitment funds to
what has been called community organizations. But the words community
organization does not appear in the legislation. It would only appear in the
regulations. Again, we're getting to the point of the definition of what that
would be across multiple departments; how it would be amended to who would
have the authority to amend it and those types of items.
As we go
through that, we'll certainly be looking for some detail and some feedback on
that. Does it apply to sports organizations, youth organizations, health and
wellness grants? All of those we're quite familiar with, but which programs and
where are they that we're talking about. Is there a specific list that will be
available? Will there be an appendix or in the regulations, is that the item
where you list out what is eligible and what is not? Or is there a whole ability
for new applicants to come forward, to bring forward and be asked to be
considered for their grants?
When you
look at that in terms of we approve legislation here today or the amendments
sorry, the amendment to the act. What's the protocol for changing the
regulations, including if we were to expand this into business grants, tourism
grants? I mentioned before grants to health authorities, because these are not
stated or defined in the legislation. We would certainly like to see some
information on that, and see what the potential criteria is and how that would
unfold in multiple years, and as we go forward to talk about giving out the
funding in multiple years.
When we
come here, and as mentioned before, come in here to discuss a budget and what
has been allocated in a particular department or across government in regard to
community grants, and there are various grants throughout various divisions of
government. Will these be integrated? What will be the status of those?
Again,
as I mentioned earlier, if we approve through Estimates here, it's voted on here
in the House and there's a certain sum that's agreed to, to distribute to
various groups, once that's done over a three-year period, I think it's very
important to have an understanding of what any new groups to come forward, any
groups that through challenges they may experience need additional funding,
what's the method for them to do that? And are they allowed to do that with the
description here?
Unfortunately, we don't have the regulations. We don't have the details, so we
really don't know how and if that would work. I'm sure it's something that many
community groups would want to know. They will want to have an understanding of
those that exist today or those advocacy groups or others that would come up in
the future and know how that would flow.
So I
recognize the minister for bringing this forward. I think in concept there are
certainly elements of this that would be very helpful to the community-based
organizations. I think there's a lot of detail here that's missing when we look
at the regulations and how this would flow over a number of years, but maybe
through the debate today and getting into committee we can get those answers and
proceed then to see how this would flow over the next number of years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me to rise this morning on our first Wednesday morning session of
the House of Assembly. I think it's a great idea, and I commend all those who
have put this system forward.
Yesterday, we debated Bill 65 and, today, we're debating Bill 66, which are the
first two bills of the opening of this session of the House.
As you
know, last fall we introduced several pieces of legislation that were very
valuable, and I'm happy to see that we're continuing that trend, because I think
the bill we introduced yesterday, of course, was a very valuable bill for
transparency and accountability. And the one we're introducing now, one we're
debating now, Bill 66, which is the bill which would amend the
Financial Administration Act to allow
the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the written recommendation of the Treasury
Board to authorize an agreement to be entered into for funds to be granted in a
subsequent fiscal year where certain requirements prescribed in the regulations
are satisfied, is equally as important, And certainly, I would venture to say,
for many of those volunteer organizations, those community-based organizations
who provide such valuable work, it's a dream come true for them.
I will
talk about a couple of organizations in my district a little later, but I go
back to last year in January, I think it was it was early in our mandate,
anyway when the Minister of Finance came to Labrador West with me and we sat
down with many of the community organizations like the Labrador West Status of
Women, Hope Haven and a few more. Their concern at the time, of course, given
the fiscal condition of the province that we found ourselves in, funding was a
major concern for them, and the fact that, of course, the fear of losing
funding.
But the
minister at the time was very adamant that community-based organizations would
continue to be funded. And to go this one, take this one step further, I think
is yeoman's service to those organizations because the concern that they had at
the time was that they spent, rather than not to take away the service they
provide to the community. But they spent a lot of their time a lot of their
time wondering where the next year's funding was coming from. And they spent a
lot of time in administrative duties trying to secure that funding.
What we
see here today, to be able to commit to a three-year funding agreement with
those organizations, puts a lot of those fears to rest, gives them more time to
do the service that they so well do in the communities, and to provide the
service to the residents. I think it's a great thing we're doing here today.
So, as
the minister has stated, currently under the
Financial Administration Act, the
ability to pre-commit funds is restricted to agreements that involve the
purchase of goods or services, and the ability to commit grant funding for
subsequent fiscal years has been identified as an obstacle to financial planning
for community organizations that rely on funding for their ongoing operations.
And
that's the message that we got loud and clear. The minister and I, and many
more, of course, that have talked to these organizations, that's the message
that we've been getting for years, is that they spend so much of their time
trying to secure funding that sometimes they lose sight of what their real
mandate is.
This
amendment to the Financial Administration
Act will allow community-based organizations to receive enhance financial
stability, leading to greater consistency and long-term planning, and allow for
more focus on service delivery, which is basically what I've just referred to.
It
allows them to provide the service and again, I go back to the Labrador West
Status of Women, the valuable service that they provide to the community; Hope
Haven, which is a crisis shelter and provides such great service, an important
service to women in our community. Now they'll have secure funding that they can
rely on for three years rather than going mouth to mouth one year to the next,
and spending their time on that, they can now concentrate on the service that
they provide.
And, of
course, with every organization and with every funding agreement, there should
come some accountability. I strongly believe that any organization, whether it's
the Status of Women or any other organization, they're prepared to accept some
accountability and responsibility for funding, if they know that the funding is
secured and the funding is long term.
Organizations applying for multi-year grant funding must be community-based and
funding is for a maximum of three years, with the ability for groups to reapply.
So three years is normal when you look any multi-year funding agreement and
the one that I'm most familiar with is the one in municipalities, the Municipal
Capital Works multi-year funding agreement, three years. Three years is a
standard length of time and I think it's quite adequate, actually.
So the
main eligibility criteria for multi-year grant funding will require groups to
have been in operation for a minimum of three years. So the groups are well
established. They've created a base for themselves. They've created a home for
themselves. They've created a mandate for themselves and they created a service
for themselves that the community really appreciates.
They
need to remain in good standing with the provincial government from a financial
and performance perspective. I don't think that's a lot to ask for. If a group
is receiving funding from any government organization or from government itself,
they have to be prepared to be accountable for that funding. They have to be
able to report on the activities. And I'm confident that they are quite prepared
to do that. If they can get a three-year funding agreement with government
whereby they have stability, they have predictability, they're prepared to do
their part and be accountable for the funds that they receive.
Of
course, they have to maintain an active presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, that's pretty natural. I am sure the department has put a lot of time
into this, and I know going back to when the minister visited Labrador West
back in early 2016, we knew then, or I knew then certainly that that's where she
was thinking that's what we needed to do based on the information that she had
gotten from the groups that were there, that they needed that stability and that
predictability and commitment to long-term funding.
I know
the department put some time into this and some work, research seven
jurisdictions, actually. Seven jurisdictions across this country, seven
territories, provinces, provide in legislation the ability to enter into
multi-year contracts. So it's nothing new, it's something that I think that
maybe we should have done a long time ago, but it's a service and a commitment I
think that will be well received within the volunteer community and within the
service organizations.
The
remaining jurisdictions do not have specific reference in legislation on the
ability or inability to enter into multi-year agreements. At least now we've
become number eight, and I think that's great for us to be doing that. Now, one
of the questions I asked in the briefing was: Well, what about new organizations
coming in, new organizations that may form or establish themselves in
communities? Because one of the regulations, one of the criteria in this, for
multi-year funding, is that it would have to be in operation for three years.
But
we're not forgetting about the many new organizations that may want to form,
because they can still apply for funding. They won't get the multi-year until
they've been three years in operation, but they're certainly available and
eligible to access funding for start-up and to get established. So we're not
ignoring any new organizations, what we're doing is that we're establishing a
foundation and a solid footing for the organizations that we have in this
province.
As I
said earlier, two of the organizations that I'd like to reference that would be
recipients of this multi-year funding and, certainly, have mentioned to me
several times, and they were quite adamant when the minister visited last year,
that this was the way to go. I would consider them two very, very there are
more, but I would just reference two in my district. That would be the Labrador
West Status of Women and Hope Haven, which are two very, very valuable and
active organizations in the Labrador West region.
The
Labrador West Status of Women was formed actually was incorporated in 1977. If
I got my math right, I think that's 40 years ago. So they've been around for a
while and when I think about the Labrador West Status of Women and it was
formed in 1977, by the way, in response to the 1967 Royal Commission on the
Status of Women in Canada. The second reason why it was formed was because of
the local hiring practices at the local mining companies.
I
remember that quite well because I was an employee of IOC at the time. It was a
time when women were getting into non-traditional occupations and IOC were just
hiring them one here, one there, but as you know today, a good percentage, a
very high percentage of the workforce at IOC, for example, are female. So they
have done their work. They have served their purpose to the community.
When I
think of the Labrador West Status of Women, of course, I can't help but think of
one very close friend of mine and a very active person in the community and
that's Noreen Careen who ran this organization. She was the executive director
of this organization for many years. She's stepped back now in the last year or
so because of health issues, but she's still an active member of the community.
When I
think back at all the work that she has done and all the work that this
organization has done for the community of Labrador West, it's just unbelievable
that they were able to exist since 1977, going from year to year, not knowing
whether they were going to have funding for the following year or not.
When you
think about it in your own organizations, that's not a very comfortable way to
operate, but now at least with this and I'm sure that Noreen is jumping up and
down today. I don't know if she's watching us, but she will know very soon, I'm
sure, that to hear this today is music to her ears. I'm sure there are many
other people in Labrador West I'm not just singling out Noreen because there
are a lot of other people in Labrador West that provide service like this and
serve on the boards with her. But when you think about it, it's a dream come
true for these also, these groups, yes, she may be the executive director but
the majority of people who keep these organizations going are volunteers.
There's a volunteer board of directors. You have your volunteers who go out and
deal with people, deal with their issues and, of course, provide great service.
The
other one that I will refer to and mention is Hope Haven. Hope Haven was formed,
I guess, in the early 2000s. Actually it was formed and it was built when I was
the mayor of the Town of Labrador City, and I remember advocating to government
and to other organizations to get this particular service organization up and
running. What it is, it's an organization that provides confidential, safe
emergency shelter to women, with and without children, who are experiencing
violence and abuse. The premise or the property that's built there is a building
that was erected in the early 2000s.
I
remember going through all the hoops and the issues of getting the permitting
and whatnot and certainly dealing with the residents in the area who were
concerned that they were having this type of shelter in their neighbourhood. But
I tell you today if we went in there today and tried to do anything to remove
that shelter, there would be quite an uproar because it has provided a very,
very valuable service to the women and children of Labrador West.
Again,
it is a unit that has capacity to accommodate nine residents for a six-week
period while they're going through these troubling times, provide a 24-hour
service, a crisis line and they have staff for 24 hours a day. We met with these
people back in January and, again, the same issue came up, that they spend a lot
of their time, a lot of their time and they're very busy people. As you know,
with this type of service, it's a very busy operation to run. But they spent a
lot of their time trying to secure funding for the following year, and one of
the issues that were brought up was that we need to know. We need to know if
we're going to have funding next year or the year after or the year after that.
I think
what we've done here today with this bill and I certainly congratulate the
minister. I know how passionate she was in those meetings, and I'm sure she has
her own organizations in her district that she deals with and everybody, every
MHA in this House has an organization in their district that would benefit from
multi-year funding like this and have organizations that provide such valuable
service.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I guess what I'd like to say and conclude is that yesterday we had a
great bill with our transparency and accountability with Bill 65, today we're
debating a bill that I'm sure the Opposition have no problem with, and I look
forward to their comments as well.
It's a
bill that really sets those organizations onto solid footing. It provides them
stability, allows them to provide the service that they've been established to
provide, and allows them to focus on their core mandate, which is to provide the
service, whatever organization it is. It allows them to concentrate, to be able
to provide their core mandate, rather than going from day to day wondering if
they're going to have money in the bank to provide the funds for either
services, either goods or payroll.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I congratulate the minister, thank the department for the work
they have done on this, and I think we're off to a good start in this session
with the two bills that we've debated, certainly the first two, 65 and 66, and I
look forward to many more debates on many more good bills. I think this one
today is a very valuable one and one that it will be well received within the
volunteer community of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to stand in this House on our first Wednesday morning in the
new set-up here to debate legislation, and particularly to speak to Bill 66.
This, logistically, and from a principle point of view is a piece of legislation
that I can support. And I see the merits and I see the value of it.
It's
pleasing to know that the opposition have listened to the outcry from the
changes from last year's budget around the definition or core funding and
multi-year funding and the benefits of that. But I think we all agree,
organizations, particularly the not-for-profit sector, needs stability. They
need to be able to have an ability to plan around staffing, around programs,
around developing partnerships.
And as
my colleague for Ferryland has outlined, logistically, this makes all the sense
in the world. We just need to have a little bit more detail of how this works,
because we all want this to work properly. There's no doubt the government are
planning to make this a piece of legislation that would be beneficial. We, as
the Opposition, want to ensure that the groups that could benefit from this
indeed get that opportunity to do it.
All the
logistical information needs to be clear so there's no confusion like we had
last year at budget time about what's project funding and what's core funding.
These organizations do too much, are too valued, and are too necessary for the
people in this province not to have a clear understanding of where they sit and
be able to plan for the future.
As my
colleague for Labrador West outlined, these organizations need that support, and
we all need to be able to support that endeavour. So there's no doubt, we on
this side, or particularly the Official Opposition, will be supporting the
concept.
I know
the minister has been fairly forthright in asking us to outline any concerns we
have, and no doubt we will do that, just some clarification here around what
defines community group. I know there are some definitions there around the
multi-year funding. Are there abilities there for increases as things change
dramatically, the process for analyzing exactly the return? Because these
organizations still have to be accountable. There has to be a process here where
these organizations are accountable for the money they're getting.
We're
first entrusting that their history and their proven record dictates that they
fit the criteria for multi-year funding, which I'm convinced 99.9 per cent of
them do and will in the future. But in those rare cases where there may be an
organization that goes astray from their mandate or doesn't fulfil what it was
set up to do, what are the safeguards here to ensure that that money then could
be better used somewhere else if that organization isn't fulfilling its need?
Or, how do we help that organization get back on track?
What
impact does it have on the staff of that department? Is there less staff needed?
Is there more staff needed? Can the additional time that those staff have be put
into supporting these organizations in a non-financial way but in a supportive
manner? So there's a bit of clarification here that we'll ask some questions in
Committee no doubt, and no doubt the minister and her staff have gone through
that.
I do
thank the minister and her staff for the briefing they gave our officials. It
was in-depth around the principle of what wants to happen and the discussions.
And no doubt, we'll get a little bit deeper into some of the detail and the
importance of it.
As we do
know, this is not new. It may be new from a legislative point of view, and maybe
even from a legal operations point of view, but multi-year funding has been
happening for a number of years with a number of organizations. It may just not
have been channelled through the proper process here. And I'm glad the minister
is bringing it in here because once the proper process is in place, then
everybody knows where they stand. Each department will know where their
allocations will have to go. They'll know where their future allocations will be
prioritized, and it gives the private sector because there are private sector
groups out there.
If you
look at the monies that are generated by the organizations that we fund outside
of the confines of direct government agencies and corporations, the third party
partnerships that they themselves enter into with the private sector and the
community sector, is multi-million dollar investments there. Having that sector
know that the organizations they are going to partner with have some guaranteed
longevity, for at least a three-year period, is a rare, positive thing.
One of
the challenges I faced as a civil servant a number of years ago, and one of my
direct responsibilities was particularly with a number of organizations in the
not-for-profit sector, was around sustainability. One it was around project
sustainability or program sustainability to be able to get a program that you
had just initiated and piloted for a year and then to be able to take it to
where you're going to get your maximum benefits for the people of this province,
but not being able to secure the funding was a challenge there. Fortunate
enough, as I mentioned earlier, core funding and multi-year funding in principle
existed because most departments would commit to it once they were sold on that
this organization and the programs and the projects they were offering were
beneficial and met the needs of that line department.
Again,
security always was hinging on the economic times, particular priorities that
may be addressed in that particular year and things may change. What is here and
what will need to be clarified so everybody is on an even playing field, is
exactly what is meant by long-term sustainability, the processes around if
things change. If priorities change dramatically in the need in society, if it's
around a mental health issue, if it's around physical inclusion issue, if it's
around a social development issue, how do we adjust the budget lines here? Will
the line departments still have access to additional pots of money that can then
address some of those other particular needs?
I know
it has been noted here, and my colleague here had noted from Ferryland: What
about new organizations coming into the process? How do you deal with things
like that? How do you ensure groups that have that ability to offer a program,
come in somewhere along the way? And I know the minister will outline that, and
it has been outlined somewhat here, but just a little bit more detail would be
easy to explain it.
I know
my colleague from Labrador West outlined exactly some of the processes there but
you have to dig down because there are a multitude of different agencies that
have different needs, have different approaches to stuff, even their own
internal structures may not fit directly with the bureaucratic process we have.
So we may have to modify, or in some cases we may have to train them and support
them to be able to modify their structure so it meets the particular needs here
so they can continue to offer the services that they do.
We've
seen over the years the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested
by government, taxpayers' money to return a billion dollars' worth of services
by the partnerships that have been developed. A process like this gives that
ability to ensure that we maximize where we are with it.
The
legislative process, while we understand some would say it's an administrative
structure here, no doubt it is, the senior bureaucrats would need to have it
because they have to ensure that each category adds up and the columns all meet
the needs of the criteria and the policy, and Treasury Board has to sign off and
Cabinet has to sign off, and the taxpayers and the Auditor General has to be
happy that that money is being allocated. What I like about this now, it also
gives an opportunity for agencies outside there to do their direct planning.
So as we
look at some of the things here about how we move it forward in dealing with
section 26, there's no doubt it's an opportunity for us in this House here to
open up a bigger discussion around, particularly, how we prioritize what's
important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There has to be a better
understanding.
In some
line department which was done it's unfortunate that in our cycle of
governance, every decade or so the administration of the day will take a process
and do a real analysis of the funding sources we have out there in the
partnerships, in the not-for-profit sector and in some of the other agencies
that we support through special program funding, about where the priorities are.
Because every so often we have to reassess where we go when there is limited
amounts of money and we all know there are always limited amounts of money. No
matter if the oil price is at $50 or $75 or $100, there's always a demand on
your revenues. And you still have to have a mechanism in play to ensure you
prioritize what the citizens of this province feel are most important.
So as we
go through this whole process, and we'll have a good dialogue here and we'll
have an open discussion, my opinion here is that everybody wants this to work.
Everybody wants to ensure that the agencies they deal with on a day-to-day basis
have stability there, and have an ability to have some vision about long-term
planning.
One of
the biggest issues and one of the biggest challenges that the not-for-profit
sector will tell you in Newfoundland and Labrador is being able to recruit
long-term staff, because in the not-for-profit sector there's not a lot of
security around year-to-year funding. The first principle in life is the
survival of yourself and your family, your core thing, but people come in very
principled, very trained, very experienced about being able to help
organizations but, unfortunately, because of the demands for their own financial
needs, the security is not there. Long-term partners find it harder to build
into something.
The
outcomes in particular programs or project funding is hard to measure because
just as you get up and get started and get staff trained, get your message out
to the general public, recruit the proper participants, assess some of the
challenges that you ran into, get to a point where you now think we can move
this to the next stage, funding no longer exists. The organization has to
prioritize somewhere else because it only has limited funding on a year-to-year
basis and things have changed. So this is a great opportunity for us to be able
to put that on an even playing field and start to move things forward.
I've had
the experience over the years to work with some organizations who have come in
at an entry level and particularly wanted to find out that they were just going
to represent the general masses of what the issues may be, but took on a life of
their own and particularly started to develop programs and services that were
immensely successful and really filled a void in our society that we weren't
offering in line departments because we didn't have the resources or the
expertise, or we weren't quite sure if that was exactly our mandate or we
weren't at the grassroots level or the front-line process of being able to
assess what's going on.
And I
just throw a couple Choices for Youth, and we all know the valuable work that
they do. The Community Youth Networks, for those who have them in their
respective regions, the valuable work that they do, everything from employment
initiatives to mental health inclusion supports to educational upgrading to all
the social community development assets there.
They're
only a small group of the thousands that we have in this great province of ours
who are driven. A key point here that needs to be outlined, it's the tens of
thousands of volunteers who will see the benefit coming from this long-term
sustainability. They're the ones who once a month, at minimum, sometimes two,
three, four times week meet with their boards, meet with their staff to try to
improve what's happening; try to fight for every dollar to ensure that the
lights stay on and the doors are open; that kids come through the doors, seniors
come through the doors or people with special needs come through the doors to
avail of a certain particular service.
So
selling this, outlining this, making it less bureaucratic and less intrusive
but, at the same time making, it accountable because there's not one volunteer
out there who doesn't want to stand on their laurels that they're doing a great
job and they're accountable for every cent they spend and every cent they
receive. Because the more that they can prove and the more that they can boast
about the great work they're doing, the more comfortable they feel about being
able to come to another partner and say give us more. Give us more and I'll tell
you why, because what you're giving us is going to benefit everybody in society.
So it's
an opportunity here for the volunteer sector to say we got a little bit of
breathing space. We got a bit of breathing space because now we can concentrate
on not every day worrying about the ticket draws or worrying about the next
corporate event that we've got to try to plan. We can now worry about the energy
in a board meeting of not being 20 minutes on programs and two hours on
fundraising; it can be the opposite.
It can
be 20 minutes on our fundraising because they still have a responsibility to
do their part, to ensure that the programs and that have the financial ability
to expand, but they can now spend the bulk of their time concentrating on how
they develop programs and services that improve particular lives of the citizens
in their area and particularly how they make partnerships.
Partnerships are not always about the financial benefits; they're also about the
resource benefits, the social workers, the nurses that may be in the
communities, the community leaders, the legal professionals, the social
development people, the recreational specialist. All these are important
components to ensure any not-for-profit organization or any agency that we as
government, as the stewards of the taxpayers' money, partner with out there to
ensure that we get a better return on our investment.
So I do
say there will be a few questions when we get to Committee for the minister to
clarify but, in principle, I think this is great. From a logistical point of
view, I think it's a great amendment to the bill. From an operational point of
view, I think it will be beneficial to everybody. We just need to ensure that
what we're offering and what we're going to partner with, with these
organizations, it's clear, it's precise, it's clean and it's accessible. And if
we find a way here because we're streamlining what we're doing, to be able to
keep that same resource, or the same human resource that we had within the
department, that now can lend another added support.
Again,
it could be in training in a way, it could be in helping how they do their
financial recording, it could be how they develop their own HR plans whatever
we can do to improve that process, improves the process for government. Because
it goes in a cycle. The better equipped the not-for-profit sector is, the better
the partnership is with government. The better the partnership is with
government, the better the partnership becomes with the private sector that
support the not-for-profit sector. So it's a cycle here that all on the same
page will make things work that much more effective and efficient.
So, Mr.
Speaker, on that, I will take my seat. But I do want to, again, commend the
minister for moving this forward, and do caution that we ensure that all the
organizations out there do have proper access to funding and that we do have a
serious look at some of the cuts that happened last year to a lot of these
organizations. Because even three-year funding, at the levels that were cut last
year, is not sustainable. I've worked with a number of these organizations over
the last number of months to see how they could get over the hump from last year
because it was mid-year when they had to make the cuts.
And I
give credit to the DF Barnes of the world and the Hickman Motors and the
hundreds of other organizations who stepped up to bail out those organizations
in that year, but it's the accumulated years that are going to be challenges for
these organizations. So I ask that we go back you're doing something that's
good; let's rectify something that wasn't so good a few months ago. Keep
everybody on an even playing field; give everybody the resources they need, make
this partnership work for everybody in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward in the Committee asking a few more questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
It seems like I got lot of
support here this morning which is
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
It's kind of overwhelming
here on this Wednesday morning, the first Wednesday morning, where most of us
have sleep in our eyes and still thinking about the dreams we had the night
before, but
AN HON. MEMBER:
What did you dream about?
MR. KING:
Dreamt about the speech this
morning.
Mr.
Speaker, it's an honour to stand here today and speak to something very
important to the District of Bonavista, and this bill, Bill 66, is going to
improve the financing and the long-term stability for many community-based
organizations within my district.
First of
all, I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance and her department for bringing
forward two good pieces of legislation, both today and yesterday. Long, long
overdue and it's a big step forward for this province and for the people with
the release of Public Accounts yesterday and with the multi-year funding for
community-based groups.
Within
the District of Bonavista this is, as I mentioned, of vital, vital importance to
us. The tourism and culture industry within the District of Bonavista is one of
the largest economic drivers within the region. Last summer, we saw a boom in
our district that we'd hadn't seen, I think, previous to that. And people are
coming to our region, not just for tourism but for culture as well.
I know
there's been a little controversy over that, but it's great to see that we put a
new or not new focus, but we put our focus back on tourism and culture because
it is a major employer for our area, and we have some great groups who are doing
some good things.
When I
started this political journey in 2014, I met with a number of groups. First, I
had to win a nomination and then win a general election, so it gave me pretty
much 16 months of pounding the pavement, meeting with community-based
organizations, and knocking on doors. One of the biggest things I've heard from
community-based groups such as Rising Tide Theatre, the Trinity Historical
Society, Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation, Elliston tourism, Home
from The Sea, the list goes on and on is that they wanted some stability to
move their organizations forward.
What
they felt when I talked to them, time after time after time, in the lead up and
after the general election of 2015 is that they wanted this funding. They felt
that the previous administration their concerns fell on deaf ears. And it's
nice to see them support this bill today because they certainly didn't support
it years ago.
What
they felt is there was uncertainty for these organizations, a delayed hiring, a
delay of delivering the programs. It didn't allow for professional opportunities
for their staff. It was a detriment for their growth and created an inability
for long-term planning. So, Mr. Speaker, this is where we're getting here today;
it provides stability and it provides for long-term planning and growth.
After
the general election, myself and the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation met with these groups prior to the Chamber of Commerce annual general
meeting, and again this topic came up. They wanted this long-term funding so
that they can have more stability and that they can grow our economy on the
Bonavista Peninsula and in the District of Bonavista.
I
brought this forward to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board
and also the Office of Public Engagement last year when I held two public
engagement sessions for the Government Renewal Initiative back in February 2016.
The one in Bonavista and one in Trinity were very interesting or, excuse Port
Rexton, were very interesting because that is where a lot of our tourism and
culture industry is based. It was third in 2015 compared to my buddy there for
Lewisporte Twillingate who looks after Twillingate, but I think may have
changed in 2016. He's saying it did, but I tend to disagree.
But what
they said to me is, you know what, we need this. They said if anything else and
you get out of this GRI, we need this. So what I did was I wrote the reports,
sent it off to the Office of Public Engagement, pestered the Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board saying this is a benefit to us, pestered the
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation about this, because it is
important.
So when
I told some of the groups about this change, in an email on Monday, I got a
number of responses back. I'm going to take a couple of minutes to read them
out.
This is
from Donna Butt of Rising Tide Theatre in relation to this multi-year funding:
It is something we have been asking government to do for a long time. It is
something I and others discussed with Minister Mitchelmore and yourself excuse
me for using his name, but I am reading if from the email.
Multi-year funding will enable Rising Tide to engage long-term planning in all
aspects of our organization. It will help us in development of new plays that
reflect the history and culture of this magnificent province that we so proudly
share with all those who come here. It will allow for strategic planning and
advanced marketing.
It will
allow us in continuing to expand our activities and grow and maintain our
shoulder season. This is very important. We often see a big boom in our area
from the end of June, when the school lets out, until the end of August, early
September. This funding can also help bring in new people to the shoulder
seasons, which would keep restaurants and businesses open longer and employ
people longer.
It will
contribute to our long-term stability and our ability to lever federal funds. It
will allow us to continue our artistic and economic contribution to our
community, our region and our province. That's from Donna Butt of Rising Tide
Theatre.
I got
another email back from Jim Miller, who's the chair of the board of directors
for Trinity Historical Society who wrote this on behalf of his organization:
Establishing multi-year funding for organizations such as the Trinity Historical
Society and others across the province that are community-based organizations
will be beneficial for permitting long-term planning and just as important, if
not more so, is the financial stability that will bring to the operations of
these organizations.
We will
now be able to plan ahead for human resources, professional development,
research, exhibit development, preservation of our historic sites, archival
materials and artifacts, as well as work on long-term and strategic planning
I'm seeing a theme here for the future of our organizations.
As you
know, from our prior discussions and this gets back to what I talked about
with yourself during pre-budget consultations, which was in 2016, meetings with
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation in Bonavista over the past
year or so, and other times when all of us on this email have had an opportunity
to say that we've spoken to the benefit and importance of establishing
multi-year funding, I and the board of the Trinity Historical Society are very
pleased to know that this change is forthcoming and our voices are heard.
Another leader in the tourism culture industry.
I also
have here from Edith Samson, the executive director of Sir William Ford Coaker
foundation in Port Union: The Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation and
myself are very pleased to know that this change is about to happen, and that we
have been heard another recurring theme, that we're being heard. As we move
ahead with the development of Port Union, the built heritage, creating a
creative economy for Port Union, working with various sources for the
redevelopment of the heritage properties and following up with the applications
to Canada's tentative list for UNESCO heritage world status and the Geo Park for
the Bonavista Peninsula, having multi-year funding provides stability to work on
these opportunities.
I'm
assuming that this multi-year funding will be applicable to the Cultural
Economic Development Program, CEDP, within the Department of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation I'm still getting used to the name which we all
apply to as arts and heritage organizations, We really are thankful that our
voices are heard and taken into account for this change in the act. We really
look forward to how discussions regarding the programming in the future can
include some of our ideas that may be beneficial to community-based
organizations, participants who take part in various programs and how it might
serve the region and province better in the future.
So I
touched on the CEDP and I have to find my notes here just to get a little
background for those who don't know; bear with me. Here is it. So CEDP supports
arts and heritage organizations. So this includes major music festivals as well.
It has a track record of no less than four years, organizations that apply for
CEDP. Managerial, professional, financial and technical capacity, in other words
excuse me, in other things, you buy the boots for the workers, all this is
funded under CEDP. It provides long-term viability, cultural activities, is
member based and has industry-wide benefits.
So some
of the groups that actually benefit from CEDP would be the Trinity Historical
Society, Rising Tide Theatre, Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation, but
also here off the Avalon you have the Resource Centre for the Arts, the Writers'
Alliance, you have Gross Morne Theatre Festival and you have the East Coast
Trail Association. So quite a number of organizations will benefit from this.
I just
posted I was speaking to this on Facebook, so just recently or within the last
few minutes before I spoke, another leader in our cultural community, Geoff
Adams who operates the New Curtain Theatre and the Curtain Call Cafι in Milton,
said to this and he's always has some difficulty in getting long-term funding
said: This will allow a group like our foundation to maintain our facility and
activities here in Milton. So that's another group that will benefit from this.
So I'm
proud of this legislation. I'm very, very happy here today to speak to this, the
benefit that it has to the District of Bonavista and the opportunities it
brings, not just to my district but to the province in general. So if anything
we get out of this, here are some key take-aways that I've gotten from talking
to industry leaders with regard to our community-based organizations. It allows
them for long-term and strategic planning, development of new programs, plays,
activities. Strategic marketing, that's bringing in new people to our area;
better able to leverage other funding sources. So whether it be in the private
sector or from the federal government, these are having that stability, having
the ability to match other funds, allows them greater freedom to get these
additional funds which will help them grow.
This
legislation will make it more effective for them to hire. They're going to know
the numbers they can have for their organization earlier. That way they can go
out, do their hiring process, get better people and train those people. It
offers better professional development opportunities. So if you know you have
the funding available to put into your organization, now you are able to have
better professional development opportunities to grow yourself as a person, to
be an expert, to highlight the things you have within your organization. That, I
think, is just as important as anything else.
Finally,
most importantly, it provides stability for these organizations. Time and time
again over the 14, 15 months that I was on the campaign trail, and in the 15, 16
months since I've been an MHA, that's what I've been hearing from these
organizations. They want stability. They want the ability to operate their
organizations, to provide a good tourism and culture experience in the District
of Bonavista, in our region, and in our province, so that we draw people from,
not just our own province but from around the world like we have over the past
number of years. This is going to be able to grow the District of Bonavista, to
grow our industry, to see more people in our region and we will see the spin-off
economic benefits from this piece of legislation.
So with
that, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board and her staff for bringing this forward. It's been an honour to speak to
this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly be supporting this bill.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I really
am pleased to stand this morning though it's morning and speak to Bill 66.
And if ever there was a bill that brings some good news, and we get many of
them. We get some that are just housekeeping but this is a bill that brings good
news, that brings good news to the literally thousands of people in the province
who are involved in their communities in actually providing services that are
essential to their communities.
I speak
as a number of others in the House could, I think from my own personal
experience because I was involved in the not-for-profit community-based sector
prior to being elected and having the honour of standing in this House, and I
know the stress. I know the stress of being in charge of an organization and the
stress of wondering from year to year, what funding are you going to have. Are
you going to be able to continue the work?
Also,
not just the stress of not knowing, but also the time every year of doing
project proposals and the time and energy that has to go into project proposals
or funding for operations because that happens as well. It's not just projects
but also funding operations which is what this bill is covering, every year
having to put an application together, it takes time, it takes energy and I
think now, thank goodness, will become unnecessary.
There
has been a funny attitude in government and dealing with government. Again, I'm
speaking this from the perspective of when I worked in community-based
organizations. You were almost made to feel guilty when you made your
application for a year to think well, what makes you think you're going to get
the money the year after, why should you assume you're going to get more than
this year's money.
Yet,
here you were with a community group that was doing very important work in the
community, recognized by the government as important work, yet you were made to
feel guilty that you could assume that you're going to get money the year after
that. That's not the way it should be. This bill is changing that, and I think
that's extremely important because government and the community have come to
really depend on the services that are being offered.
As I was
listening to my colleagues naming off groups in their districts and in their
jurisdictions who are community-based groups doing great work, I thought I
better not start trying to rattle off names because there are so many,
obviously, in St. John's with the population we have and so many in my own
district that I don't want to miss anybody. I think the important thing is the
recognition and this is what is so important that the work the community
groups are doing is essential work for the good of the community.
So
whether we're talking about women's organizations who are helping all kinds of
women deal with issues such as spousal violence, economic insecurity, housing
issues, whether it's the community centres. We have a number of community
centres in the city that also receive funding and which are essential to their
communities doing things like after school programs, mentoring programs, even
child care programs in some cases, programs of enhancement for children.
There's
one community centre here in the city, I know, who actually has a program of
getting students involved in playing instruments, stringed instruments. There
are all kinds of things going on. We also have the groups that work with at-risk
youth and groups who are working with adults to address mental health issues,
housing issues, drug addictions. I mean the list goes on.
In
actual fact, a lot of our community groups are doing the work that we expect of
government services. So if we recognize how important that work is, and
government must because over the last years governments in this province, and
both partiers sitting here were part of that, have been downloading services,
downloading things on to the community group shoulders. So all the more reason
than to make sure that it is easier for them to do their work, and the
multi-year funding will certainly do that.
I look
at the eligibility criteria, and the eligibility criteria are good. I agree with
them. In order to qualify organizations must be community based. I would assume
the government is going to define what community based means. Funding is for a
maximum of three years but groups may reapply. That's good. That's because if
the work they're doing is essential and if their reports show that that work is
essential and is really doing something good for the community, it's good to
know they can reapply. They'll need to reapply; must have been in operation for
three years before they apply. That makes sense as well; must remain in good
financial and performance standing with the provincial government. That makes
absolute sense; must maintain an active presence in the province, and that makes
sense too.
I notice
that we don't have the word of accountability in there but I'm sure the criteria
with regard to remaining in good financial and performance standing with the
provincial government has in it the meaning of accountability, openness and
transparency so that the people know that what this group is supposed to be
doing is happening.
I've
checked and I know this is not the case now but some years ago, a long time ago,
back in the 1990s when I was working in the community, I was getting our
organization was getting money from a provincial department and we'd get it
every year. I used to ask, I actually said, what are the criteria for my
reporting mechanism? And the department had no criteria for the reporting
mechanism. It was even said to me, well, you know, they didn't expect a report.
I said but I'm getting $100,000, surely I should have to report it. That has
changed, but that did exist.
I would
always put a report in because I wanted to be accountable. I didn't want it said
that they didn't know what we were doing. I would put my report in but there was
no criteria for the report. So that was really quite shocking. At the time, I
remember really, really being shocked about it because at the same time we were
getting federal government money and certainly the restrictions that were there
for reporting were very strong. The good thing about the federal government
funding was that it was also multi-year, so they had two good things going for
them. I do know the reporting mechanisms now are in place, and that's extremely
important.
One of
the things that I'm concerned about, and I would like the minister to speak to
when the time comes, is we need to know exactly what is meant by community based
and we need to know what is the definition of programs for community-based
organizations, because various departments do have money for community-based
groups. So what is the definition that will show who can apply and what programs
are covered by the legislation?
I don't
see that in the bill itself and maybe that's going to be in regulations, as some
of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked about that, but I think
there's a lot of detail we need to have in place in the regulations to ensure
that when a group applies it knows that nobody is going to say to them well, how
do you know you're going to get money from this program? What makes you think
this program is covered? We have to be sure we know exactly what programs are
covered; what funding programs are covered when it comes to organizational
funding for community groups.
Can
groups who are dealing with the arts, will they be considered community based?
Will they be covered by that? Or will it just be project funding for them? What
does community based mean? I notice the criteria say: must maintain an active
presence in the province, but they must be community based. So we're going to
have to have a definition of both of those things in the regulations so that
there'll be no doubt, because we don't want confusion among the community-based
groups.
You see
one group being told yes, you're community based and you're covered, and another
group being told no, you're not covered, didn't you know that? So we really do
have to have clarity. The legislation is great, but it doesn't paint any of
those pictures, and I think we need that. We need to make sure that things are
clear.
One of
the things we need to think about, and I know this is a hard time for
government, we know all that. It's one thing to have the multi-year funding but
we also need to assess the amount of money that's going to our groups. There
have been cutbacks over the years to organizations, like the women's
organizations that are doing essential work. They really don't have adequate
funding for salaries. They'll still be penny-pinching; it's just that they'll
know for three years how much penny-pinching they have to do.
And I'm
not being negative here, I'm just pointing out a reality. That we expect a lot
from the community groups. We expect a lot from them with regard to the services
they deliver, and there is still going to be whether they get the funding for
one year or three years, there is still going to be the whole pressure of having
to have, of going after project funding in order to deliver the programs they
want to deliver. Because in actual fact, an awful lot of the programming that's
going on doesn't come from the operational funding, it comes from project
funding; whereas I think there are some of the programs that sometimes get
offered are an essential part of the organization and should be part of
operational funding.
I think
we do have issues to look at. We have a long way to go in looking at how we fund
community-based groups. They scramble all the time, there's no doubt about that,
and the multi-year funding will help alleviate one level of that so they have
some security as they scramble for the rest of the money they need to carry on
programs. So I know, we all know organizations that when you ask, well, how many
positions are permanent? Well, it would only be one or two positions that are
permanent, and then other positions are always contingent on getting project
funding. So as long as you have a particular project going on for a while, or
you can pick up new projects, you may have a person on a staff, and a good
person who does great work, but you always have to be finding project funding
for that person.
So this
is an issue that's not going to change with the multi-year funding. I mean,
that's a reality. The multi-year funding will help so that they have security
and know they have the operational funding, but we still do not have enough
money in the operational funding, and it will not make up for the program
funding that's needed.
Government still has to look at, how are we going to make sure that our groups
have the money to do what we expect them to do? Because that's what has
happened, they are now expected to do work that once upon a time they didn't
have to do. And there's still a question of, with some of the work that some
groups are doing, especially in the women's movement, should there not be, for
example, assigned positions where there's a community link between a government
body and the organization, maybe social workers that are assigned to actually
work with organizations. So there are many multiple ways in which we need to
look at how we can make to support better the work of the community groups.
A lot of
groups will not stand and say what I just said, because the groups are always in
a position of being there with their hand out and hoping they're going to get
funding. So they don't have the ability to stand or go to a minister or to say
publicly, we still have a lot of problems, we are still feeling the workload of
the downloading onto our shoulders of services that really government should be
offering. We really are feeling the stress of not having enough staff to meet
the demand. All of that is there, and there's no doubt about that.
So we
have to continue to meet with them. We have to continue to look at their needs,
their funding needs for staff, because they're not being met. The multi-year
funding is not going to change that. We have to look at the need for they need
money for staff training because more and more they are dealing with issues in
the community that are complex and you have to have staff who can deal with
those complex needs that are in the community.
You
don't have automatically money for training in the operational funds; this is
very serious. As well, groups need to have training in best practices in
governance and financial accountability. So sometimes groups may not meet the
standard that we would like to see when it comes to accountability for the use
of money or even maybe for how accounting practices are kept within the
organization, and they will need money to do training with staff on that level
as well.
So in
looking at the money that is needed by a community organization, we really do
need to look at all of the facets. The multi-year funding is great, but we still
have to do much more to take the pressure off our groups, our groups who are
doing such tremendous work out there but who work many, many hours over what
they are paid for, who spend much time in volunteer work besides the work that
they're paid for and who just totally give of themselves to the community.
Burnout is high in community-based work; burnout is very high.
So I'm
happy that we're doing this multi-year funding. I'm happy to support this bill,
but I think there's much more that needs to be talked about. I hope that the
minister will speak more to some of the issues I've raised and if I don't hear
an answer in particular to my question with regard to the programming that will
be covered, then I will ask that when we get into Committee.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly welcome everyone here on a Wednesday morning. It certainly great to be
up and awake in the morning, as the Member for Humber Bay of Islands was just
saying to me, certainly great to be here in the House of Assembly on a
Wednesday.
Of
course, this was only made possible through some of the great efforts from the
Minister of Justice and our Government House Leader with some changes to the
legislation that would allow us to be here in the morning. Certainly, this is
giving us an opportunity to be more efficient and more effective as we plan
properly throughout the year.
Plan is
the key word because that's what today's legislation is all about; it's all
about proper planning. It's very similar to yesterday's legislation. It was also
an amendment to the Financial
Administration Act and that was all about allowing people to plan. So
yesterday's legislation was referring to the release of Public Accounts that was
going to give the people of the province, industry, business, you name it, the
opportunity to see the numbers so we can plan accordingly and work going
forward.
Today's
legislation is no different. It's going to give groups, organizations in
communities the opportunity to plan properly. Planning properly is really
important, and that's something that our government is committed to. In fact,
this piece of legislation was actually one of the initiatives in
The Way Forward document. And if
you'll bear with me for a moment, I'll read that.
One-Window, Multi-Year Community Grants (Action 2.12): Our Government will
implement a strategic one-window, multi-year approach to community grant
funding. This will ensure an efficient and consistent approach to
administration, accountability and evaluation. Financial systems and legislative
frameworks will be modified which is what we're doing here today as
required to facilitate the development of multi-year funding arrangements with
community organizations where appropriate. Multi-year funding will enable
community groups to plan more efficiently.
MR. LETTO:
Another promise kept.
MR. FINN:
Thank you very much, the
Member for Lab West who just pointed out, this is something that we committed to
in the fall and you're seeing legislation here today that will directly affect
that.
So this
is Bill 66, as noted by some of the previous speakers, An Act to Amend the
Financial Administration Act. As the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury noted in her opening remarks, currently this legislation would be
restricted for multi-year funding, be restricted to the purchase of good and
services. So this change essentially would give the ability for community-based
groups and there have certainly been a number of questions asked. The Member
for Ferryland had a number of specific questions, and the Member for St. John's
East Quidi Vidi, and I'm certain that the Minister of Finance will address
some of those, of course, when we get to the Committee stage of debate here
today.
But I
guess, from the outset, without getting into any of the weeds here, this is a
great piece of legislation. The ability for organizations to plan properly
this is an obstacle that's been pointed out by non-profit and community groups
for years. For years and years and years, organizations have been asking for
some type of commitment so they can plan properly in order to provide programs
and services to individuals and communities.
And so,
I recall distinctly going to pre-budget consultations held by the former
administration and during those pre-budget consultations the former
administration's system was quite simple. They'd sit everybody up in a room;
there'd be a square table or a bit of rectangle or u-shape, if you will, the
Minister of Finance and/or any other Members of the House may be present and
groups would sit down in front of them and just plead their case. You would have
a 20-minute window to just pour your heart out and just beg and plead and say
this is what we want, this is what we want, this is what we want.
Quite a
bit of different approach that we've taken, where we've asked groups to have a
sit down and a discussion and dialogue with us; but, under that former way, I
can tell you, I sat in the room four years,'07, '08, 2009, 2010 and I saw
community groups after community groups come in and specifically ask for some
type of stability around multi-year funding some type of stability.
It's
something that I think has been well known across the non-profit sector. I think
if you talk to anybody at the Community Sector Council, any of the groups
involved a number of individuals have referenced specific organizations today.
I think if you talk to anybody, you will clearly understand that this is
something that's been asked for, for quite some time.
One of
the reasons why this is really promising to me is I come from a non-profit
background. Just before becoming elected, I spent eight years working with the
Community Education Network in Stephenville. The Community Education Network is
an organization that has been established for 25 years. In fact, they just
recently celebrated their 25 years of existence this past fall.
The
organization was originally founded due to low education and high school dropout
rates on the Port au Port Peninsula back in the later '80s and early '90s. Since
the organization was founded in 1991, it grew substantially over the years.
Currently, they provide programs to address all the social detriments of health
and they do everything from early education and childhood learning from our
Family Resource Centre programs to Adult Basic Education programs.
I
specifically worked with employment initiatives as an employment counsellor, as
well as with housing and homelessness. So what I can tell you about this
organization is that they receive funds from a variety of different government
departments. They receive funds from Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. They
receive core funding from Advanced Education, Skills and Labour right now. They
receive funds from the Department of Education. They receive funds from the
Department of Justice, the Office of Public Engagement, the Department of
Health. So when you look at an organization from the outset and you look at all
the programs they offer, one thing that people don't often think about is who
administers that behind the scenes.
What I
can tell you is I was fortunate enough to have a conversation with the the
financial administration officer with the Community Education Network and what I
understand is that this time of year, in particular, as we approach the year-end
fiscal, the financial administration officers are trying to do some wizardry
because they have no idea what they're going to do going into April 1 or moving
forward into the next fiscal year.
We have
organizations saying to their employees: Okay, well, your program is going to
expire on March 31 and we're not quite sure if we got any commitment from
government yet moving forward. So we hope that we have some funds kind of set
aside in a pocket, if you will, to keep you employed. So staff really have no
certainty. They don't know if their program is going to get funded or continue.
The inability to comprehend that really puts financial administration officers
at a loss. It really puts them at a loss as to how to move forward.
This
particular pot of funding and again a commitment made by the Premier in
The Way Forward vision document will
address that uncertainty. Again, just as I had mentioned, addressing the
uncertainty of Public Accounts was addressed yesterday. I'm very pleased to see
some support from the Members opposite. As questions were raised, I'm sure the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will have every opportunity
to address some of those specific questions.
But I
guess just to point out to Members opposite and to the folks that are listening,
you have to start somewhere and by putting in this legislation today, the
framework is there; this is the first step. As they've mentioned as well, I'm
sure the regulations will come forward in due course. Because it's important to
note that this is going to give an opportunity and potential for groups to
apply, baring they met some of the criteria. And the criteria that will be set
out will be outlined as the regulations unfold, so just kind of important to
point that out.
Again,
I'm extremely pleased to see this commitment. It's a positive step in the right
direction. It's just another example of us listening as a government, as we did
in the spring session of last year, in the fall session as well. We've
introduced legislation that people of the province have been asking for, for
years.
Right
now, they've all acknowledged that groups have been asking. I heard the Member
for Conception Bay East Bell Island, the Member for Ferryland said the same
thing, they realize that groups have been asking for this funding. So it kind of
leaves me asking the question: Well, why didn't they do anything about it? Why
didn't any legislation come from the other side when they were in power to
address this, if they had known about it for years?
This is
no different today than what we did with the procurement legislation in the fall
absolutely no different. We've heard from groups and communities and municipal
governments all over this great province; they wanted to see some changes to the
procurement act. So, as a government, we took that advice and we acted on it.
This is
no different today than the presumptive cancer care for volunteer firefighters
no different. It's another example of something that the people and the
volunteers in this province have been asking for, for years. And so, while the
former administration is here today, the Members opposite, they're happy to
support the bill, I'm sure they'll have a number of questions as mentioned, but
I'd be remiss not to mention that this is just another example of something that
they heard for years and years and years and just didn't act on just
absolutely didn't act on.
Again,
it's all about planning. It's all about planning and giving people the ability
to plan properly. Uncertainty, questions and no foresight as to how to move
forward leaves everybody scrambling. So you have community groups, as I just
mentioned, come March 31, they don't know if they got someone employed on April
1. They have no idea. Yet, they're providing a great service and we all
understand that the thousands of volunteers and the folks that work on the board
of directors in the various community groups, we understand that they work very
hard and everybody applauds that. Well, why can't we just give them an ounce of
certainty? Why can't we just give them a small degree of certainty? And that's
what this piece of legislation does today.
I'd be
shocked if we didn't receive support from all sides. As mentioned, this is
something that would have an impact on community groups across the province. I
would imagine that there's a community group in just about every other district
that's represented here in the House that would have an impact on this.
You talk
about everything from youth organizations to senior's organizations,
organizations with mental health initiatives, Schizophrenia Society, for
example. I mean, there are so many groups that could benefit from this but,
again, important to note that they would have to meet some of the basic criteria
as outlined in the legislation regulations. Some of them, minimum requirements,
as alluded to by the Minister of Finance when she gave her opening remarks.
So
again, it's all about the ability to plan, to plan wisely and just another
example of how our Premier and this government is listening, and is listening
intently, for some of the things that the Members opposite had every opportunity
to introduce year after year.
I'm very
pleased to see this legislation put in place today. A huge thanks to the
Minister of Finance and her staff of course. A lot of times it would be remiss
not to thank the staff who've been involved in putting the piece of legislation
together. And I know that there are a number of ministers that have been
involved in this legislation as well, and I know the Minister for Children,
Seniors and Social Development and the good staff of her department have had a
huge role to play in this. And I look forward I believe we might be hearing
from her a little later on, but certainly 100 per cent for me for Bill 66. I
look forward to support from all sides.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place, and thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear1
MR. SPEAKER:
Before the Speaker recognizes
the next hon. Member to speak, I'd certainly like to recognize and apologize to
the previous speaker. I recognized him from the District of Stephenville and it
should have been Stephenville Port au Port, my apologies.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm only going to take a couple of moments because I think pretty much
everything that could be said, has been said. I have some questions as well,
although I believe they're probably the same questions that the Member for
Ferryland already raised, so he'll probably get to ask them before I do. So if I
get the answers, fine; if not, when I get to Committee and there's something
that hasn't been answered, I'll ask.
I think
it's fair to say everybody supports this piece of legislation; we all know the
valuable work that the social sector does in our province, so many community
groups and organizations. There's a huge list of them, whether it be groups that
deal with addictions, or deal with youth, or deal with seniors, or whatever the
case might be there's numerous organizations that deal with different aspects
of health care. And they all do great work. We do need to support them, and
certainly when we invest in those organizations, we get a great return on that
dollar.
Obviously for them to function effectively, they need some certainty in terms of
their budgets from year to year. I've spoken to people in many organizations who
have that challenge every year in terms of wondering where the revenues are
going to come from, whether they can count on those government grants coming
through or not. A lot of them spend an inordinate amount of time doing
fundraising in anticipation of perhaps not receiving funding, and really their
efforts should be put towards the mandate of their organization as opposed to
selling tickets and doing golf tournaments, whatever they have to do to raise
money.
I know
there's going to be a certain amount of that as well, but that should not be
their primary focus. It should be on doing the great work that they're doing; I
think that providing the stability does that. I think one member talked about
the fact that it would certainly be helpful in leveraging funds from other
programs, other levels of government, perhaps private sector and so on, matching
funds and things like that. So I think it's a positive all around in that
regard.
Obviously, as the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi mentioned, this by no
means addresses the issue of whether or not an organization is receiving
adequate funding. That's a separate debate. It's linked to this, I suppose, but
I do see it as a separate debate. I guess that's part of the budget debate when
it comes forward. But there's no doubt, there are organizations that are
struggling because they don't have sufficient funding, and that needs to be
addressed as well as we're able to do so.
In terms
of providing some certainty for these organizations so they can plan three years
out and so on, I think it's a positive thing. As I said, I believe everyone's
going to support it, I certainly do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand here today and speak to the amendments to Bill 66. I won't take
very long because as my colleague across had said, many of the other topics have
been said. But I'd like to just say our government is committed to the community
organization and the commitment they make to the fabric of our community. So
it's important, and I'd like to use the word, consistency. This provides
consistency.
In my
previous life, I was an executive director for a not-for-profit organization and
consistency is what we always talked about as organization EDs, or executive
directors. And having that consistency, the ability to hire staff on a
longer-term basis, provide training and support to them. Also, not only for your
staff perspective, but also for your programs and services you're providing
the much-needed programs and services you're providing to the people that
utilize the use of the organization and use those services. So it's very, very
important, I believe, to have that consistency. It's something that charity
organizations have been asking for, for a very, very long time, and we're happy
to be delivering on a promise here today.
I'm
happy to highlight a couple of the organizations that come to my mind that I've
had the opportunity to work with, that will benefit quite heavily from funding
like this. The Kids Eat Smart Foundation is in this funding regime. They receive
$1.1 million a year. I'm a volunteer with Virginia Park Elementary. They receive
a breakfast program, along with 248 other schools in our province, which is
important. It provides 25,000 students per day with a nutritious meal.
It's
quite fitting that we're doing this, bringing this legislation in, especially
for this group today because it's the first day of nutrition month, which my
colleague next to me knows very, very well. And I'm happy to be part of that
organization. I know the consistency of having funding for a longer-term basis
will allow them to do bigger planning and more strategic planning that will
allow them to grow their service and hopefully reach out to more children and
provide a little bit more of an ability for them to plan, which is important in
any opportunity that we have to do that.
The
stability of funding is always a challenge in any charity that I've been a part
of or worked with and any opportunity we can have, as a government, to support
that, I think is an initiative that we should try to do. Like my colleagues have
mentioned before, I can't see anyone else in the House not supporting a move
like this to listen to the charities that have been speaking to us for so many
years, to allow them to have that stability that we all would like to have.
With
that note, I won't belabour it any longer. I'm pleased to support this, as a
former executive director and a former not-for-profit chair and involved in that
community just like many of us in this House, and I know that's going to make a
big difference to the ability that these executive directors have to deal with
each and every day. They spend a lot of their year applying for grants, for
year-over-year funding and this will alleviate that, at least cut it in a third
or two. I'm quite happy to be supporting this and be part of a government that's
willing to move in this direction.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't
take a lot of time on this bill as well, but I just wanted to get up to say a
few words in support of the legislation. What we're doing here is we're changing
the Financial Administration Act.
The
Financial Administration Act is an act
which governs the way we spend money and the way we account for the money that
we've spent. Yesterday, in Bill 65, we looked at changing the way that we
account for the way money is spent. That's a very positive change. It allows
people to see where we are financially and then it encourages a public debate
about how we spend money, how much we spend and things like that. So that was a
very positive change.
Today,
we're talking about another piece of legislation that will change the
Financial Administration Act of this
province in terms of enabling government departments to give funding for
community-based organizations for multi-year funding. So this will allow
organizations that do good work in our community to plan better, to be able to
have more stability in the work they do and will be able to for example, in
terms of people who work with community-based organizations, because of the way
they're funded, year by year, they don't have a lot of continuity. As they get
close to the end of the year contract, maybe they're concerned about whether the
funding will be given again for the following year. So this impacts on the
ability of community-based organizations to retain good employees, because
they're possibly looking for employment elsewhere that gives them more security
in their day-to-day lives.
So those
are some things. It allows the changes that are being made today allow
organizations to do a little more planning in terms of long-term planning in the
way they operate. They are able to plan for two- or three-year programs rather
than just one year programs because they have that certainty around the funding.
I just
wanted to say before I close, these community-based organizations are really
good value for money in terms of the way we spend taxpayers' dollars here. These
community-based organizations, I know I have a number in my district and
others from outside the district that services the area they provide many
different services and they provide them at a very cost-effective manner. They
leverage the work of volunteers. So the ability to improve the way we fund these
organizations is very important to the efficiency of these organizations and the
way they operate, and it's very important to the people in the communities that
are serviced by these organizations.
So it's
a very important piece of legislation. I want to compliment the government for
taking this approach, and also the Minister of Finance for bringing forward
these changes in legislation in a very timely manner. I just wanted to add my
voice and I'm pleased to see there's support on all sides of the House for this
piece of legislation. I think it holds a lot of potential in terms of the way we
fund organizations. So I'm pleased to support this piece of legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly want to take a moment to thank all the Members of the House
who participated in the debate this morning, our first debate as part of the new
hours that the Standing Committee has put in place. I certainly appreciate the
participation from both sides of the aisle.
The
particular piece of legislation that we are debating today, for those listening
at home, just as a reminder, is an amendment to Bill 66, An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act No. 3. This provides for the legislative changes
needed under the Financial Administration
Act, which governs portions of government spending.
It's going to allow for the establishment of a multi-year grants program for
community-based organizations around core funding.
Mr.
Speaker, last year's budget, if you looked at the numbers as they are reflected
in the Estimates, as many members in this House have already referenced and
there are a significant number of dollars that move through government into
community organizations or other organizations whether they are economic
organizations or regional health authorities, for example, Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing the total combined number for grants across government and in
the Estimates book, as by the Estimates definition of grants, is $4.07 billion
dollars.
So the
numbers that we're talking about today, to bring it back to the core discussion,
are those grants that are specifically for community-based organizations. The
Member for Ferryland in his comments earlier asked some questions about the
definition of community-based organizations, and certainly those organizations
that are representative of the community, or a significant segment of the
community, and are engaged in meeting the social, wellness, educational and
community development needs of the community. '
Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned earlier this morning, we have a cross-departmental team
working on the multi-year grants program. We have officials on that team from
the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation; we have the Women's
Policy Office represented; we have Executive Council; we also have
representatives from CSSD, the Children, Seniors and Social Development
Department. We have representatives of the Finance Department as well as the
Office of the Comptroller General, and other departments such as the Department
of Education and Early Childhood Development would be asked to participate in
that work on an ongoing basis.
The
committee's work is continuing around the structure of multi-year grants for
community-based organizations, and once the regulatory framework has been
established that will be communicated to, first and foremost, community
organizations and certainly to the people of the province in a very transparent
and public way, so that they can be very clear, certainly for the community
organizations that will be able to avail of the multi-year funding, they will
know clearly that they are in that category and also provide opportunity for the
taxpayers of the province to have transparency into the criteria for eligibility
for multi-year grants.
We've
had a lot of discussion this morning from both sides of the House, I think, in
recognizing the significant importance of community organizations in our
province, and certainly many of us, if not all of us, recognize the challenges
that those organizations can be under.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that I certainly wanted to mention in my closing
remarks, the Member for Conception Bay East spoke about the definition of
project or core funding. And based on the research that I've seen that was
reflective of the work that the former administration had done, there had been a
number of areas where the former administration had started to capture the
monies that was being delivered to community organizations as core grants and
the money that was being delivered as project grants.
There
may have been some disputes related to that under the former administration but
certainly officials are working to clarify, in our administration, the
definition of core grant and program funding. Because as Members of this House
would understand, program funding is specific to a program that a community
organization is offering, and core funding, operational funding, is the funding
that we're talking about when it comes to sustaining those community
organizations. Projects oftentimes can come and go depending on the strategic
plans for the organization, but core funding is specifically what we're talking
about.
I also
wanted to mention earlier, several Members talked about accountability for
community organizations and I think it's not lost on this hon. House. You know,
the situation that we saw earlier last year with a community-based organization
whose mandate was incredibility important in our community in the area of
supports for women, but an organization that certainly had significant community
questions as well as questions from Members of this House around the stewardship
around the funds that they were provided.
And I
think it is not lost on any of us that in this current environment where
community organizations work is so important and integral to being able to
support people in our community that the integrity and the accountability for
those funds is at the highest level.
For
those community organizations that set the bar very high in their own
organizations, I would like to say thank you and congratulations to their boards
of directors, their volunteers, their staffs, for taking a very best-in-class
approach to making sure that they are able to provide support and provide
disclosure around the accountability that they have for the funds that they
receive, whether they be funds that they received through the provincial
Treasury, through the federal treasury, or through community-based donors,
corporations, not-for-profits, et cetera, that also support our community
organizations. That accountability is certainly essential and I think expected
in every corner of our society in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize those Members that spoke
today. The Member for Ferryland spoke. I appreciated his early indication that
he was supportive of the amendment that we want to make to the
Financial Administration Act. He asked
some questions around the regulations. As I said earlier, the regulations will
be made public when established and, most importantly, they will be communicated
to the community organizations so they have a clear understanding of the
applicability of those regulations on their own organization.
I want
to thank the Member for Labrador West. I would certainly echo his comments,
particularly in my role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. He
mentioned the Women's Centre in Lab City that I've had the privilege of spending
some time with those fine volunteers and a great organization, as are many
across the province. And I also want to echo his comments on Hope Haven as well.
I think those organizations really do know how to, as they in their own words
say, stretch a penny.
I would
also like to thank the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island. I certainly
appreciate his support of these amendments. I understand and certainly have
appreciation for his questions regarding the definition of project money and
core funding, particularly as his own personal experience and his own personal
involvement with a community organization and his own advocacy and in the former
administration, from the notes that I've read, around that particular
organization and his own questioning of project and core funding. So I can
certainly understand his questions today.
I would
suggest for the Members that asked the question about how organizations could
come on to or off of multi-year funding, that we probably are going to look at
the same approach that we would look at for infrastructure spending, where you
have a plan for multiple years, you have priorities, you have criteria that
you're assessing on whether those organizations remain on multi-year funding.
The monies will be budgeted in the budget as it's presented, but the multi-year
funding will be monitored through a similar process as would be held with
infrastructure spending.
I also
wanted to thank the Member for Bonavista who spoke very eloquently about his
district today; also, the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, who
asked some questions about what exactly the definition of community based was,
and also raised some
questions about program money. And as I've indicated, the work that we're doing
on multi-year funding now is around core funding.
There is
some discussion in the committee that's working on the regulations that there is
some program money that may in fact make better sense to be included in core
funding so that those organizations can better leverage the federal government.
I think there would be unanimous consent in this House that all of us would want
those community organizations to leverage every cent that they can get from the
federal government as well, and we certainly wouldn't want to stand in the way
of that by not recognizing some small amounts of project money as being part of
this rollout when we do roll it out later on this year.
I want
to also say thank you to the Member for Stephenville Port au Port for his
comments this morning, as well as the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, my
colleague from Virginia Waters Pleasantville also spoke, as did the Member for
St. George's Humber.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take a moment; we have a tremendous amount of work
happening across multiple departments, as I've indicated to the House. Some six
to seven departments are involved in the multi-year funding work as it's
happening right now and those individuals who are working hard on this project
also have other things they're working on. Some of those were available to the
Members of the Opposition and Members of the Government House side, as part of
the briefing. I certainly want, I think on behalf of all the Members in the
House, thank the officials for their time in the briefing, in advance of the
discussion on this particular bill.
In
closing, I just would like to come back to the reason we're here to have this
discussion on the amendments to the FAA. Implementing this approach to funding
for community-based organizations is consistent with the direction that has been
provided in my mandate letter, as well as government's strategic policy
objectives as noted in The Way Forward
document issued in November 2016.
Included
in The Way Forward, we are looking at
implementing the multi-year approach with also delivering a one-window portal
for organizations to apply for this core funding and continue to maintain their
core funding. Those are things we're hoping to be able to communicate to
community well in advance, because we also recognize that as anything changes,
as we change to a multi-year funding which in the organizations that are
receiving core grant funding now, that there would be a lot of questions. And it
is, I think, a responsibility of ours to make sure we answer those questions and
provide clarity as soon as we can so that those organizations aren't caught in a
year where the ambiguity of what's happening may present challenges to them. We
want them focused on the good work that they do and not focused on the questions
they might have around this process.
So it is
our intent to make sure that the communication with those community
organizations, as well as the taxpayers, the people of the province, is fulsome
and will be one that respects the needs well in advance of the end of their
fiscal year to have significant clarity. I would expect that information will be
shared with community organizations as early as the beginning of this fall. So
that they'll have clarity going into next year as to the process, and also how
that might affect their long-term planning so that they can get to work doing
the things they need to do.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat, and thank my colleagues again for
their support. I heard from all sides, I think, unanimous support for this
particular amendment to the FAA. I certainly appreciate the comments that were
made here this morning.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 66 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Financial Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 66)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 66 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 3, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 66)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the
consent of my colleagues, I would suggest that we recess now until 2 p.m. today.
MR. SPEAKER:
According to Standing Orders,
the House is now recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon, being Private Members'
Day.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have Members'
statements for the Member for the Districts of St. George's Humber, Topsail
Paradise, Exploits, Cartwright L'Anse Clair, Torngat Mountains and
Stephenville Port au Port.
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. George's Humber.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate students from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary school in St.
George's who, this past year, won first overall at the FIRST LEGO League
Robotics Competition in St. John's and were crowned provincial championships.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
The team of students from St.
George's and their coaches will now attend the World Festival in St. Louis,
Missouri, this coming April. They are one of only six teams from Canada invited
to attend, with over 80 countries represented. Out of more than 29,000 teams who
competed worldwide in more than 1,200 qualifying and championship tournaments
worldwide during this past year, they were ranked in the top 100.
In this
competition, teams of students aged nine to 16 are challenged to think like
scientists and engineers. They choose and solve a real-world problem, and also
build, test and program robots. Through their experience, teams operate under
the core values of celebrating discovery, teamwork and gracious professionalism.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join with me in wishing the robotics
team from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary school in St. George's all the best as
they compete with the best in the world in St. Louis in April.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Topsail Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to take this time to acknowledge two incredible
individuals that have received the Canadian Red Cross Lifesaving Award for their
heroic efforts, in September of 2014, for saving the life of a young soccer
player who had been seriously injured on the Topsail soccer field.
Gerry
Stead and Alana Langdon were watching the children's soccer game when this
tragedy took place. Together, Gerry Stead and Alana Langdon, without hesitation,
both rushed onto the field to the injured 11-year-old boy.
Each
played a role a very serious and important role and the life saved is a
result of a superb team effort. The attending surgeon said if not for the quick
action of Gerry and Alana, it is unlikely that this young player would have
survived. Both said the true hero was the young player who survived these
injuries, and has made a full recovery and again able to enjoy his life and a
game of soccer.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me today in congratulation both Gerry
Stead and Alana Langdon who are two true heroes.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Beaton Yates of Botwood. Beaton was
born in 1937, and has lived his entire life in Botwood. He raised a family there
and is one of our best-known volunteers.
Beaton
is also a veteran of the RCHA, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. He joined in
1954 and served in Germany from 1955 to 1958 with NATO peacekeeping forces. He
is an active member of the Royal Canadian Legion; he volunteered with the Legion
Action Committee at the Dr. Hugh Twomey health care centre veterans unit for
over 10 years, and faithfully visits the veterans unit every Sunday.
Beaton
was awarded the Queens Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2013 for outstanding service and
was awarded a lifetime membership to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 5 in
Botwood.
Beaton
is an exceptionally dedicated member of the Salvation Army Church in Botwood,
organizing, cooking and serving the seniors' luncheons. After 40 years, he
remains an active member of the Salvation Army brass band.
Beaton
is a devoted husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. He lives his
life always putting other people first.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in offering congratulations and thanks to Mr.
Beaton Yates of Botwood.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Someone
once said: It's not what we take when we go, but what we leave behind that
matters. I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual from my
district that left much behind in how he loved his family, how he treated
others, in how he ran his business and how he loved life.
Randy
was a devoted son, husband, step-father, brother, uncle, cousin, friend and a
respected member of the community who left an impression on all who were
fortunate enough to meet him. Innovative, a visionary and a planner; in his 46
years, he experienced more than most of us will if we live twice that time.
He
personified the truth of the quote by Mother Teresa: No one ever became poor by
giving. Randy was a man who gave to his family, to individuals in need and to
community efforts. It was a sad day in the Labrador Straits and my entire
district when we said an untimely goodbye to one who still had so much to offer.
Mr.
Speaker, it's an honour to pay tribute to such an outstanding businessman from
my district. Randy Earle of Earle's Grocery in L'Anse au Loup, you will be
forever remembered.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Every
year at Hospitality NL's annual general meeting, the Cruise Industry Association
of Newfoundland and Labrador presents an award called the Cruise Vision Award to
an individual or group that has made a significant contribution to growing the
cruise industry in our province.
This
year the award was presented to a young lady from Nain, Nunatsiavut, Ms. Ashley
Dicker, making her the first Aboriginal person in the province to win this
prestigious award. Ashley is a volunteer in the tourism sector and was Adventure
Canada's point person in Nain for the last three years.
The
industry described Ashley this way: She volunteers her time to ensure that each
cruise visit to Nain is a positive and enriching experience for both guests and
the community. Her thoughtful program planning has led to a better understanding
of the Newfoundland and Labrador character, Inuit traditions and the unique make
up of Nunatsiavut.
This
year, her hard work and dedication resulted in Adventure Canada's most
successful stop in Labrador in their 21 year history along the coast.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ashley Dicker on her Tourism
Excellence Award for 2017. There's a special place in my heart for Ashley, Mr.
Speaker, she also happens to be my daughter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
with great privilege that I stand today to recognize Maude Kendall of
Stephenville. Maude was recently honoured by representatives of the Canadian Red
Cross at a ceremony in Stephenville as she was retiring from volunteering with
the organization after 50 years of service.
Her half
century of volunteering with the organization began in 1966 when she then lived
in Ramea. Moving to Stephenville in the 1980s, Maude realized that there was no
Red Cross organization in town and proceeded to form a local branch.
While
Maude acknowledges that there were a few small disasters such as minor floods
and fires over the years, it was her work in later years that she says she will
never forget. In September of 2001, eight planes carrying some 1,200 passengers
were diverted to Stephenville where Maude and the Red Cross where on hand to
help. Maude spent 70 hours straight at the Stephenville airport during 9-11.
A few
years later in 2005, Maude was eager to assist approximately 100 families that
found themselves homeless after a major flood a true role model and
inspiration to all volunteers.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Maude Kendall on her 50 years of
volunteering with the Canadian Red Cross.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to offer condolences to the family and friends of James
McGrath. Mr. McGrath was a former Member of the House of Assembly, Member of
Parliament, a federal Cabinet minister and Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr.
McGrath was an exemplary parliamentarian, and his body of work which span over
40 years is truly remarkable.
Born
in Buchans in 1932, Mr. McGrath spent time in the Royal Canadian Air Force
before embarking on a career in politics and being elected to the House of
Assembly in 1956. In 1957 he won the federal seat for St. John's East and was
ultimately appointed to the federal Cabinet in 1979 when he became the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans under Prime Minister Joe Clarke.
Later,
in opposition, he served as Chairman of an All-party Special Committee on House
of Commons Reform, and was an outspoken proponent for reform legislation
concerning children's advertising.
Mr.
Speaker, James McGrath became the province's Lieutenant Governor in 1986 and
served that role for five years. He is one of only a few Canadians to receive a
lifetime membership in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He is also a
recipient of the Churchill Society Award for the Advancement of Parliamentary
Democracy. He also received an honorary doctorate from St. Francis Xavier
University in 1979.
Mr.
Speaker, I hope, and we all hope, that Mr. McGrath's family can find some solace
in the fact that he was a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian who had a
significant impact on his province and his country.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in offering my deepest sympathies as they go through
this difficult time and join me now in a moment of silence.
(Moment of silence.)
MR.
SPEAKER:
Please
be seated.
The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P.
DAVIS:
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement today. Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Jim McGrath dedicated his life very proudly to serving the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and started when he was just a teenager and having
a keen interest in the Confederation debate.
And as
the Premier mentioned, he represented our province in the federal Parliament,
first elected in 1957, but while he was unsuccessful in the following election,
he persevered and was elected six more times, serving from 1968 to 1986. He sat
in the federal Cabinet as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and he did chair
a special committee that introduced the practice of electing the Speaker by
secret ballot; chaired the standing committee on human rights and accepted the
call to serve as Newfoundland and Labrador's eighth Lieutenant Governor from
1986 to 1991. He's had nothing short of a remarkable career in public service.
To his
family and friends, I express our deepest sympathies as the Leader of the
Official Opposition, and as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party,
the party in which he proudly served. He's earned a place of honour in our
province's history by dedicating his life to making all of our lives better.
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.
And I
thank the, the prime minister the Premier for the copy of his statement.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I don't think so.
I hope
Jim won't mind my saying that. A bit of humour might help her today.
I'm
deeply saddened, actually, to hear of Jim's passing. He was a family friend, and
like most people who knew him, I was very fond of him and always happy to be in
his company.
Jim
McGrath would want to be remembered first and foremost as a passionate
Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I extend my condolences to his family and hope
they find some solace in our admiration of his enormous contribution to our
province and our country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise in this hon. House to recognize March as Fraud Prevention Month
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fraud
Prevention Month unites more than 80 law enforcement agencies with public and
private sector organizations across the country to raise awareness and protect
Canadians from fraud.
This
year's awareness activities are related to binary options an illegal online
investment scheme that usually results in significant financial losses for
investors.
Binary
options require investors to bet on the performance of an asset such as a
currency, stock index or share over a short period of time. The payouts are held
in online accounts and when investors attempt to collect their gains, they may
find that their accounts do not exist.
Mr.
Speaker, no one is registered to trade in binary options in Canada and we
encourage anyone who encounters such fraudulent activity to please report it to
the Service NL's Financial Services Regulation Division.
As well,
one of the best ways for residents to protect themselves from investment fraud
is to research if the advisor or firm is registered with the Canadian Securities
Administrators by visiting
www.AreTheyRegistered.ca.
During
Fraud Prevention Month, Service NL will be tweeting fraud prevention tips, and I
encourage all of my hon. colleagues to help raise awareness on this very
important issue.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we
also recognize Fraud Prevention Month. I'm sure we've all heard the sad stories
of people losing large amounts of money through fraudulent schemes. In many
instances, the impacts are heartbreaking.
Mr.
Speaker, knowledge is power, and it's important that we all play our part in
raising awareness of fraud prevention. Any tips we can give to the general
public are valuable. It's also important that instances of fraud be reported so
that others can become aware and the risks of being taken advantage are reduced.
We all can do our part and raise awareness on this issue.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Anyone can be a victim of
fraud, but seniors are particularly vulnerable. It's good that there are more
initiatives to protect Canadians such as tweeting prevention tips, but many
vulnerable people such as seniors have no access to Twitter or social media.
I urge
the government to ensure that people not hooked up to social media also receive
fraud prevention tips, and I ask the minister to make connection with the
various seniors' organizations to make that happen.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, we saw the Minister of Education stand up and pledge zero cuts for his
portfolio.
I ask
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development: Will she stand up and
commit to no reductions to the funding of programs and services for the children
and youth in foster care?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Children
in care receive this exact same level of education as every single child in this
province. I'm not really certain, Mr. Speaker, why the Member opposite has
singled out just children in care. All children receive a good education in this
province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, the question was
pertaining to funding of programs and services for children and youth in foster
care.
And we
are wondering if she will make the same commitment as her colleague to no
reductions to these programs and services, yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the
Member is talking about a budget item. That will be released when the budget is
released.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I did not hear a commitment
there, Mr. Speaker.
Can you
tell us how many foster placements have been created in Labrador in the last 12
months?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I thank the Member opposite
for giving me this opportunity to speak about foster placements, Mr. Speaker.
The
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development values every single
foster placement, all 580 that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. We work diligently with Aboriginal leaders throughout Labrador to
ensure we can find whatever foster placements we can find.
When
children go into care, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we work to place
children with family members, with uncles, with aunts, with grandparents, with
siblings, Mr. Speaker, whomever we can place children with that is closest to
the family. So foster families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are valued,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Following the government
restructuring, I've been told that changes have been made to the Youth
Corrections branch.
I ask
the minister, if she can outline these changes for the people of our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, we are
evaluating the Youth Corrections branch, so the Member opposite is somewhat
correct. And we are identifying the need in addressing the resources to the need
within the department, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Can the minister elaborate on
what changes you have made?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I would remind
the Member opposite, that last week when we made the difficult announcement that
we made about a flatter, leaner management as well as government restructuring,
that I indicated to the media at that time, that once all employees affected
received notification and received clarity around the impact of them as
individuals, that we would be providing this House with that information.
I would
ask the Member opposite I understand her eagerness to answer questions on this
particular matter, but until we can assure the Members of this House that every
single employee has been spoke to, I will be happy to table information in this
House that reflects the departmental staffing changes, as well as the numbers of
new positions that were created as part of the work that we did last week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A number
of key contracts are up for renewal in March, including those with Key Assets,
Blue Sky, Shalom and Waypoints.
Will the
Liberal's cost-cutting measures be applied to these critical service providers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite is talking about a service to vulnerable children. The Department
Children, Seniors and Social Development will continue all services for
vulnerable children that are necessary. We evaluate each individual child's
needs, and we apply the service to that individual child.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Can the minister, based on
her most recent briefing numbers, tell this House what the current client to
worker ratio is in Mushuau First Nation and in Sheshatshiu?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. The
regional average caseload for Labrador is 1 in 29; for Sheshatshiu it's 1 in 37;
Natuashish, 1 in 26; Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Mr. Speaker, 1 in 28; Happy
Valley-Wabush, 1 in 25 I can go on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, it's
disappointing to see Members opposite laughing, this is quite a serious matter.
Given
ongoing cuts by the Liberals: Can the minister confirm that the client to worker
ratio will not be impacted?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I can confirm, Mr. Speaker,
that our department works diligently to ensure we have a proper client-staff
ratio.
Mr.
Speaker, since I have become minister of the department, not once did I decline
an RSA for Labrador. We work constantly and consistently to ensure that our
children have the proper staff ratio.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I have been told that child
protection staff have been impacted by last week's Liberal cuts.
I ask
the minister: Will she stand firm to make certain there are zero cuts to those
who provide direct supports and care to our most vulnerable children and youth
in the upcoming budget, yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain
how you can go yes or no on the care of children protecting children, Mr.
Speaker.
Each
child is based on an individual, an individual assessment of the child. The
allocation of resources are fluid; they're changing constantly throughout the
province as children come into care and as we put children back into their
homes, back into their homes with supports and services, back into their homes
where we want children to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Education stated, I said
what I meant, I meant what I said, when asked important questions about his
position on education cuts.
I ask
the minister: Will you stand by your over-my-dead-body comment that there will
be no more teacher cuts in the upcoming budget? A simple yes or no.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
Yesterday I tried to use Dr. Seuss I think it was lost on the House to
illustrate that I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
That is
a book about an elephant named Horton. And the elephant in this room here, Mr.
Speaker, is the fact that the people of this province were basically mislead
about the nature of the financial disaster that was created by the previous
administration. That's the elephant in this room. It's not as funny as
Horton Hears a Who! It's not funny at
all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
There's no doubt there may
have been some misleading here, but it definitely wasn't on this side of the
House; it was on that side about what they would do when they took government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
what the people did realize was 30 new schools being built under this
administration, 100 newly renovated, hundreds of human resources added through
counsellors, teachers assistants, millions of dollars
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
put in the school lunch
programs and additional services added to the people of the province.
I ask
the minister: Last week, you stated additional cuts would cause damage; will you
commit that there will be no more cuts to the education system in the upcoming
budget? Again, a simple yes or no.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, I remind
all Members of the House that the only individual that I wish to hear from is
the individual that I've identified to speak.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question. It's an honour and a privilege to serve here in the
House of Assembly. There are only 40 of us in the province who have this
privilege. The great thing about this job is that in a few weeks or a month,
whenever it's going to be, we're going to have a budget. It's going to be
presented by the hon. Minister of Finance here on the floor of the House of
Assembly. We'll have weeks and weeks and weeks to debate its content and I don't
have anything further to say about its content.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'm not really even sure what's going to be in the
thing. All I know is what our department has proposed. We're going to be meeting
around the clock to get that finalized soon, but there are no pre-budget
announcements to be made here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
It's ironic, for four years
in Opposition, he was the champion for investments in education and how we, as
an administration, should improve it.
So I ask
again: Actions speak louder than words; will the Minister of Education commit to
no further reductions to education in the spring budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I
could repeat myself again and again, and I have to do that because it doesn't
seem to get through to the Member. We are not going to be making any pre-budget
announcements here on the floor of the House of Assembly today, that I'm aware
of. I'm not going to be making any.
In a few
weeks or a month or so, we're going to have a budget here. We'll have an
opporinity to debate it. We have a very lengthy tried, trusted and true process
that we use to debate the budget. If the Member wants to debate its contents at
that time, we can do that; but I am no more or no less a champion for education
than I was in 2011 when I was first elected here and in the 25 years prior that
I was a public education advocate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The Minister of Education has
spent in excess of a quarter of a million dollars on external consultants to
determine which of the libraries he plans to close.
Can he
tell us which libraries he plans to close in the near future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
I thank the Member for the
question. In response to public concern last spring, I think it was or maybe
early summer, we accepted a recommendation from the Public Libraries Board to
have a consultant to review the library system in the province to ensure that it
is best serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There
was a fairly lengthy process that went on. We had the public consultations from
Labrador City right down to St. John's. We had a survey that was done online.
You can go to the Public Libraries Board website and see what was heard in that.
I
understand that the report is in the process of being finalized. I expect to see
that and for that to be released publicly in the spring.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Minister of Fisheries was directed in his mandate letter to establish a
fisheries advisory council; that was 15 months ago.
Will the
minister commit to a date when this council will finally be put in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for his question. Mr. Speaker, I was directed in my mandate letter to
establish a fisheries advisory council and I can assure the Member opposite that
we've taken our time to make sure we get this fisheries advisory council right.
We will be moving forward with the fisheries advisory council in the very near
future.
The
Member opposite should reflect on their time in government, Mr. Speaker, because
I believe there was a time in either 2007 or 2011 when the previous
administration committed to a seafood marketing council and we're still waiting
for that one.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, you're the Minister
of Fisheries now; it's time to make some decisions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Government said this council
was supposed to play a key role in the strategic plan to revitalize cod.
I ask
the minister: This council is still not up and set up; when is this plan going
to come forward?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Again, I would like to just reassure him that
that's something we're taking our time to make sure we get it right. Because in
this province today, we're facing a situation in our shellfish industry and a
transition back to ground fishery that are not going to go so in sync as we
would like to see, Mr. Speaker.
So it's
important that we set up this council as soon as possible, but it's more
important we get it right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, he had 15 months
to get it right. It's time to get it right now.
We're
all aware of the recent reports of the dramatic cuts in shrimp and snow crab in
our province. Harvesters and plant workers are very concerned, yet the minister
said it's too early for his government to do anything. I'd say it's almost too
late.
I ask
the minister: When are you are going to put a plan in place for our fishery?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I
thank the hon. Member for the question. But maybe the hon. Member needs to
understand how this process happens when it comes to quotas. So we've had
science work done in the last two weeks on shrimp and crab. Now, DFO will go out
and meet with the stakeholders in the province, whether it's the harvesters, the
processors, all the groups in this province, to formulate the numbers around the
quotas.
Until we
know what the quota cuts are, it's premature for us to go out and talk about
something that we don't have any idea really what the number is going to be at
this point. We know there are going to be reductions, Mr. Speaker. This
government has responded to reductions in quotas previously.
It was
this government, I must add, that finally brought an end LIFO. And without an
end LIFO, Mr. Speaker, this year we would not have an inshore shrimp industry at
all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I remind the
Minister of Fisheries it was an all-party committee that got together
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
We all played our part in
that, and we all agreed with that.
I've
been speaking to fish harvesters the last number of days and they're very
concerned where they're going to sell their fish to. I'm wondering: What are we
doing to expand markets both locally and globally.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the fishery in this province this today, one of the
things that we're going to have to do in the future is make sure we maximize
value because, unfortunately, quantities are going to be going down when you
look at shrimp and shellfish.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we will work with the industry and we've worked diligently with the
industry over the past 15 months, I can assure the Member. Anybody in the
fishing industry, whether it's in harvesting or processing, who's wanted to sit
down and have their opinion heard or their thinking heard by this government,
we've been more receptive to do so. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, we'll
continue to work with the processors and harvesters in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister please provide a copy of the analysis and the resulting rationale that
went into the decision to divide Parks and Natural Areas Division? Who made this
decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
part of the restructuring plan that was announced last week was when you look
at the parks, Crown lands, agriculture, forestry and all of those sorts of
things, part of the restructuring was to make sure we find the efficiencies, the
programming efficiencies. An example with the Crown lands on the West Coast, we
already had the enforcement, agrifoods was already there, forestry was already
there, Mr. Speaker. So it was important that we break down those silos, Mr.
Speaker, and create what is really the natural efficiencies that were already in
the system.
So when
you look at parks and putting it in Tourism, it was it's an example of making
sure that we not only carve out the natural heritage sites that we have in our
province, and parks in general, to make sure that it's part of our tourism
package as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister identify and outline all the sites that are included in natural areas?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the question I am not quite sure of the number of sites that are
natural areas? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are sites like Mistaken Point, Cape St.
Mary's Bird Sanctuary and others. Past that point, Mr. Speaker, I would have to
ask the Member if I could actually get that list for him and provide it at a
future date.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we are hearing that the division responsible for Mistaken Point is in
chaos. Can the minister confirm that the position responsible for guiding and
overseeing important work, including presentation, interpretation and promotion
of Mistaken Point was eliminated?
And I
want to remind: the world is coming in June, and we're not ready.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. Member knows of a division in this government or in this
province that's in chaos, I would certainly ask him to take that conversation to
me outside this House or here in this House later today because the reality is,
Mr. Speaker, I've not heard of any chaos in the department that I represent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, we may have a
case of mistaken minister here, because yesterday I don't think anyone knew who
the minister was. Now, we've finally narrowed that down today. So, and all due
respect chaos, I'd like him to check back and come back to me and fill me in
on that at a later date.
I ask
the minister: How does your government plan to keep commitments made to UNESCO
now that Mistaken Point is an ascribed World Heritage Site?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, what our
government did last week was endeavour on a flatter and leaner management
structure. That structure in no way jeopardizes any of our natural areas, or any
of our parks or any of our sites in this province. I think what the Member
opposite is doing is just fear-mongering. So I would encourage him, that if he
has concerns be responsible and bring them to the department.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I guess that's
what I'm doing here, I'm asking for the status because people are concerned.
We've
heard from numerous sources that over 700 people looking to tour Mistaken Point
were turned away from visiting the site last year because of lack of resources.
Increased tourists to this site were up 71 per cent last year and the
announcement only came in July. There will be a far greater number of tourists
arriving at the site this year.
Can the
minister give assurances that the appropriate resources will be in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
minister responsible for tourism and culture, I would like to say that we've
done exceptional work when it comes to promoting Mistaken Point. We've actually
done some of our advertising around the site itself to promote and attract
people to go to Mistaken Point. We've invested in Trepassey and looking at the
hotel that is there, Edge of Avalon, to make sure that we can expand and be
prepared for increased tourism traffic. We're working with the stakeholders on
the ground.
The
former Department of Environment as well was working with the ambassadors and
working with the groups to make sure the site is prepared, that there is
capacity and that we are going to be able to deal with increased visitor
traffic. But, we also have to recognize that this a protected area. We're
dealing with 565 million-year-old fossils, and we have to make sure that there
isn't a significant amount of people going in areas where they're not supposed
to.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, something I'd
like to make clear. There are obligations that fall under the UNESCO site. You
have to meet obligations. The criteria are clearly laid out criteria, and no one
has answered that question yet.
Another
point, so Mistaken Point is the first provincially-managed World Heritage Site
in this province. A plan is needed.
I ask
the minister: What is the government's management plan to meet those
obligations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, nothing has changed with the changes that government made last week
with regard to the management structure. At no point in time has there been
anything changed with regard to the way we manage Mistaken Point or any of our
other sites in the province. The Member gets up just throwing these darts in the
dark again, right. They pick numbers and they pick places that they want to just
start tossing stuff out there, Mr. Speaker, with little or no research.
Again, I
can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. Member
AN HON. MEMBER:
They're mistaken.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, they're mistaken
obviously in their approach to this, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I worked with the Minister of Tourism. When it comes to natural areas,
Tourism and my department will work very closely together because we'll be the
custodian of the management area, of the land, but when it comes to selling our
tourism to the world, Mr. Speaker, our Tourism department is doing a great job.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, again, I'll
remind him maybe they're unaware. This is the first provincially managed
UNESCO site in the province. There are clear obligations, I can't stress it
enough. The government opposite, the minister should know the answer to these
questions. I'm not fear mongering, I have my sources. Obviously, he can't answer
the question.
So I'll
ask him another one now. Can he table a copy of this management plan, seeing
they are so up-to-date with everything else?
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly find the information that's available for the Member
and get it back to him.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Given the increased number of
tourists expected: Will the minister reaffirm that resources will be provided
including road improvements, site enhancements, interpretation centre and
staffing to meet visitation demands?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When it
comes to our anchor attractions, when it comes to sustainability and development
our department worked with the former Department of Environment on the dossier
to help achieve world UNESCO status. We're well aware of the obligations to
ensure that we maintain and follow those criteria.
We're
going to continue to work with the community, as I'll work with the Member, the
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources. On economic development initiatives,
it's no different than anywhere else in the province. Our rural and regional
development teams and economic development officers are adequately prepared to
help facilitate and work with our partners to achieve economic development
across Newfoundland and Labrador but also maintain our unique culture and
preservation that exists in this natural protected area.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South for a very quick question.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
we've just confirmed there's not much in place for this coming summer. So I'll
ask one more question.
Can the
minister confirm that their cuts have led to a full complement of staff not
being in place for the spring opening?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources for a quick response.
MR. CROCKER:
No, Mr. Speaker, I can't
confirm that, because that's just absolute fear mongering again from the Members
opposite.
It's
shameful that they would take a site like a UNESCO World Heritage Site and stand
up in this House today, Mr. Speaker, and drag it through the mud and talk about
the work that's been done by them. Even the Members opposite had some were in
government when this site was going through the process and it's absolutely
shameful, Mr. Speaker, that they do that in this House today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There
will not be any Member of this Legislature take the Legislature on their back.
The rules in this Legislature are clearly defined and clearly understood. I ask
for order from all Members.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In 2015
the Member for Bay of Islands told a group of protestors: When I fought for
long-term care in Corner Brook
it wasn't to allow a B.C. company to come into
our province and make a profit off the most vulnerable citizens in Newfoundland
and Labrador. I can tell you here today that a Liberal government, if formed,
will not privatize health care in this province. You have our commitment on
that.
Mr.
Speaker, since gaining power, this government has decided to privatize the
design, construction and maintenance of hospital and long-term care facilities
in Corner Brook.
I ask
the Premier: Why is it now okay to allow a BC company to come into our province
and make a profit off our most vulnerable citizens?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
design and engineering on projects the size of a long-term care site or a
hospital that we have in this province, I would remind the Member opposite that
it's usually done by engineering firms outside of government. So that's not
unusual.
What
we've been able to do in Corner Brook with the long-term care site is look for
expressions now for people that would qualify. And, indeed, as we made it quite
clear, the services provided in terms of the front-line services would be
supplied by public services employees, like our nurses and our LPNs and
organized labour groups, Mr. Speaker. We have made that quite clear.
What is
very obvious of this, and I'd like to remind the Member opposite, it that this
building, the long-term care site in Corner Brook, would be owned by the people
of the province from day one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
summary information released to the public concerning the so-called,
value-for-money assessments for the Corner Brook hospital and long-term care
projects is skimpy to the point of telling the public almost nothing.
I ask
the Premier: Will he release the full value-for-money assessment to the public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the assessment that she's referring to, that the Member opposite is referring
to, outlines some 7 to 9 per cent savings on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, given the situation that we're into, this is a savings. We've went
through it. The consultants identified that this is the best way forward. The
other option that the Member obviously is suggesting is that we not do this;
therefore, leaving vulnerable people in our society like seniors she's
suggesting that we not do that.
Mr.
Speaker, the new long-term care site in Corner Brook will employ some 200 people
on its completion, nearly 400 people during construction.
It is
very odd today that the Member opposite is asking about employment, in
particular in some of the smaller communities, when this indeed actually
services the needs of seniors and people with disabilities but also creates
employment.
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.
What I'm
looking for is the proof of why this is a good thing for the province. We've had
claims from the previous government that Muskrat Falls was our least-cost option
for electricity supply. That's a mistake we'll be paying for, for generations to
come.
So I ask
the Premier: How many years will it take government to pay for the Corner Brook
hospital and long-term projects under the proposed P-3 arrangements?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
ask the Member opposite: Certainly don't compare this administration to making
the decision that were made around Muskrat Falls; it is a very different
decision. In a few years, in just three years, we will see energy rates double
as a result of the decision that she's referring to. This is not what's
happening with the long-term care site or the hospital in Corner Brook.
Doubling
electricity rates, the decision that she's referring to, is a quite different
decision than when we talk about long-term care sites and a hospital for Corner
Brook. People have been waiting a long time. The previous administration has
announced this a dozen times. But fundamental to this decision is that the
services will be provided by the public sector. There is a savings and it's a
30-year arrangement. Mr. Speaker, it's savings from day one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the
Premier wants us to accept what he's saying, well, why will he not give us the
full assessment to the public so they can decide, because that's what we haven't
gotten about Muskrat Falls and that's what we're asking for here.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
guess what the Member opposite is asking for is that we put out what would be
the budget that we would be thinking about that this facility would require from
the people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not prepared to put out the number right now when we're going
through an evaluation process. It would be irresponsible for us to show
companies or anyone interested in this some cases, in a province like Quebec,
it's actually unionized companies that participate.
Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador are looking forward to this. But for us
to put out these numbers right now would be premature. We have done a
significant amount of work, it is outlined in the assessment that she's
referring to and there are some 7 to 9 per cent savings for the people of this
province, and the people of the province will own the building from day one.
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Patient
Safety And Quality Assurance In The Province, Bill 70.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Budget 2016 implemented a regressive
tax on books in this province; and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in the country to have such a
tax; and
WHEREAS
a tax will undoubtedly affect literacy rates in this province, as well as
negatively impact local authors and publishers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately cancel this ill-conceived book
tax.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2016 was a disaster
for the people and the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only
province in this entire country facing recession because of the policy measures
implemented, and one that will have a lasting impact forever on some of our most
valuable citizens, our children, when it comes to the book tax.
I have
heard so many of our students who are attending university come home and talk
about their struggles and just the additional burden that this book tax is
placing on them and their limited, meager funds that they have to try and
survive getting an academic education in this province, Mr. Speaker.
We also
have the impact that it's having, of course, on the authors and publishers in
the province. We continue to receive emails, Mr. Speaker, to this day, of
concern from people of the province about
Budget 2016 and what it's done to attack and erode our culture.
Books,
in particular, are the very fabric of learning. We can go back in time to the
ancient scrolls and know the importance of what books do for us and our ability
to learn, be educated and do what we can by way of helping others in the world
through learning.
And
without access to books, Mr. Speaker, and by imposing this regressive tax, we
are going to see some of our children unable to avail of these books. We're also
seeing across the board increased impact on organizations that rely on books to
provide their services such as daycare, such as Community Youth Networks, such
as our libraries, including our school boards who now have to bear the
additional cost of a book tax. A book tax, the only place in all of the country
that has a book tax is in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, we've heard over and over and over again this government wants to look
at innovative ways. A junk food tax would far, far, far be of benefit to our
kids
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
than a book tax. Please get
rid of this regressive book tax.
Thank
you so much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government recently cut vital funding to many of the provincial youth
organizations; and
WHEREAS
the cuts to grants to youth organizations will have a devastating impact on the
communities, as well as its youth and families; and
WHEREAS
many of these organizations deeply relied on what was rightfully considered core
funding for their day-to-day operations;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate funding to the province's youth
organizations immediately.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, in this House of Assembly this morning we debated a piece of
legislation, Bill 66, which was about multi-year funding. And one of the key
components that we all spoke to was the importance of organizations, volunteer
organizations, not-for-profit organizations; but particularly, a number spoke to
the importance of youth organizations and what it means to have not only core
funding, but multi-year funding so that they can continue to enhance proper
programing, continue to attract proper staffing, continue to develop good
partnerships with the private sector, with other government agencies, municipal
agencies and in their own communities itself.
But to
do that and I mentioned this, this morning they need to have the rightful
core funding that was always part and parcel of the expectation that we, as
taxpayers, had to give to those organizations and as the government duly saw the
investment in being a benefit to the people of this province.
Right
now, a lot of these organizations have lost anywhere from 40 to 60 per cent of
their core funding, so even a multi- year funding is still not going to put them
any further ahead. Because three years down the road not only did they lose 60
per cent of their funding, but three years down the road the value of that 60
per cent could be 65 to 70 per cent. They have to make that up somewhere in the
community.
So it's
not a good investment to do it that route. What we're saying is you want to
start off fresh; you want to introduce something that we all spoke to this
morning that is a good piece of legislation that will benefit organizations,
particularly those youth organizations. Go back, reverse the cuts that you made,
which were minimal when it came to savings, yet would have a devastating effect
on these youth organizations. You're starting off fresh with multi-year funding.
No
doubt, these organizations, the hundreds of them that I'm familiar with and
other people are familiar with, will meet the criteria for multi-year funding.
Bring them back to a sustainable portion of funding where they can move out to
invest in our communities, provide the programs and services, save tens of
millions of dollars for the taxpayers because they have a better ability because
of their infrastructure, because of developed partnerships, because of their
ability to leverage money in the other sectors, to be able to offer the programs
and services to the sector that they provide services for.
So we're
encouraging the government and the Minister of Finance to go back and in this
line budget find a way and there are creative ways of doing it because
you're moving towards something good, make sure that good is really beneficial
by instituting and reinstating the funding that was cut, which was a minimal
amount of savings from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure
that these services can be provided and the multi-year programming funding is a
benefit to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'll
speak to this again, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
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 government plans to remove the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on
books, which will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment
of local books stores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by
government must be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by
higher book prices; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada
and the other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to
encourage reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS this province has many nationally and internationally known
storytellers, but we will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our
provincial government a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I stood a few days ago in the House with this petition as well and
talked about how short sighted it was. When you look at the prayers in the
particular petition and saying that we will be the only people in Canada who
will have to pay our provincial government a tax to read the books of our own
writers, some of our writers have told us that, in fact, the tax will be more
money than they will get for each of their books.
So, Mr.
Speaker, there is obviously something wrong with that. There has to be a better
way.
Thank
you very much.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It being
3 o'clock and Private Members' Day, I call on the Member for Cartwright L'Anse
au Clair to present her private Member's resolution.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
truly a privilege today and use the next 15 minutes to speak to something that I
am very passionate about, and that is supporting the increased participation of
women in leadership and political roles.
So just
to review my statement that I read into the record on Monday, Mr. Speaker, the
wording of the PMR on women in leadership:
WHEREAS
only 34 female MHAs have been elected in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1930;
and
WHEREAS
as of June 2016, only 22.8 per cent of all national parliamentarians were women;
and
WHEREAS
the recent Daughters of the Vote event saw significant interest among women
across the province to become involved in political and leadership roles;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage increased participation of women in
leadership and political roles.
Mr.
Speaker, time won't permit me today to talk about all the things that I want to
say I'll get a few minutes to clue up at the end as well about the
importance of supporting women in leadership roles. The PMR today, Mr. Speaker,
is moved by myself and is seconded by my colleague for Burin Grand Bank.
Before I
came into the Chamber this afternoon, we sat today, the first time, in a morning
sitting and we had a lunch break. And before I came in, I did a little impromptu
survey in the caucus room with my colleagues. I just went up to them and said:
Who's the person that has influenced your life the greatest, to date? And
resoundingly, Mr. Speaker, nine times out of 10 it was a female and, for most,
they said their mother.
I just
want to start by saying by saying women, we take our place and we play a strong
role. That's why it's important that in this Chamber where decisions are made,
where policies are put forth, where we debate things that will become laws in
this land to live under, it is important that we have a better representation of
women here in this Chamber and right across the country.
Women
represent more than half of the world's population. Yet, it's unfortunate that
we continue to be grossly under-represented. When we look at our parliaments
across Canada, Mr. Speaker, I think BC has maybe the best representation, with
about 36 per cent. So we have a long way to go. Here in this Chamber, we have 40
people that represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and 25 per cent
of that is women.
And, Mr.
Speaker, when we look at some of the work and some of the studies that have been
done by the UN and other groups, we see that advancing women in leadership is a
key component in addressing women's equalities, and there's a figure I want to
touch on here. The United Nations note that policy begins to adequately reflect
women's concerns when 30 per cent of the government body is female, as a minimum
requirement. So we've got about 25 per cent, Mr. Speaker, we still have a ways
to go.
As the
Commonwealth Women Parliamentarian representative for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador since 2014, I have had some tremendous experiences and
opportunities, Mr. Speaker. I think I've been in maybe seven or eight different
Legislatures in the country and I've gotten to meet some amazing, strong women
that are leaders in their field, that are doing great things to impact change in
society, to make it better for men and women, for families. Because as we know,
Mr. Speaker, often women bring different things to the table and women maybe
will think about different things and care about different things.
I shared
this story at lunch with someone in my own community, a little coastal community
in Charlottetown. In the last six months I've had three emails from a young
mother. She's from here in St. John's, I believe, and she moved to
Charlottetown. Shortly after they moved there, she took her two young boys to
what they thought was a playground, only to find out the playground is all grown
over and dilapidated. The four year old and the six year old were in tears and
said, mom, how come we don't have playground? She's written me three times to
say, can we find funding for a playground?
I
haven't had an email from either gentleman in that community saying we need a
playground. So I just share that as an example, because I just had an email
again from her the other day. And, yes, I will do whatever I can
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
to make sure there's
funding for a playground in that community so that these children can have
well-balanced lives.
So, Mr.
Speaker, as I've travelled to the different Legislatures there's that consistent
theme where women continue to be grossly under-represented. There are all kinds
of barriers, and I shared with I'm going to talk about the Daughters of the
Vote event that we held here last Thursday. I shared with them in particular
some really sobering stories when I assisted in a campaign school in
Yellowknife. Some of the young ladies said, I would like to run for public
office but it was difficult for them to get people to donate. It was
difficult.
It
seemed to be more difficult for the women to have people donate to their as
you know, you can't run for public office until financially you have the
wherewithal to do that. And, you know, flying into areas where there were
language barriers and sometimes you would need an interpretation and all of
these different things. My heart went out to them, and I helped them where I
could. I'm not sure how things went in the final election but I hope some of
them did get elected, Mr. Speaker.
So we
see there are all kinds of barriers. I stand before you as someone who I've
not been without my own barriers. I moved back to my community in '91, and in
that 25 years I got involved, as a young mother then I was in a little
community where if you wanted to see things happen, you didn't always have the
luxury to wait for someone else to make it happen, so you got involved and you
did your part.
I spent
a lot of time sitting at tables that were male dominated. This is no offence to
anyone in the Chamber that might have grey hair or no hair, Mr. Speaker, but it
was my experience again and again that sometimes I might bring an idea, maybe to
the health board. I might bring an idea forward and it wasn't accepted, and a
few meetings later some older gentleman would bring it to the table and it would
be acted upon.
That
used to be really, really frustrating for me, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes I
was sitting at board tables with people who lived half time here and half time
out of the country. I was a young mother and I was using the health system, I
was using the educational system and I felt like I knew where the shortcomings
were and where we needed to make improvements, but sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we're
not given the same credibility, we'll say as women.
There's
a quote that I've known most of my life that says: As women, if we are to make
it we have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good. And there could
be some truth in that, too, Mr. Speaker. When we think about, reflect on what
women bring to the table, it is so important that we do all that we can to
support women.
Last
Thursday, we held a Daughters of the Vote event to commemorate the 100th
anniversary of women's right to vote in Canada. And it was Manitoba that first
gained the right to vote. When I did a little research into that, it's hard to
believe, Mr. Speaker, that women, under the law, were not considered persons.
Women were the leaders in the household, raising children and keeping things
together, but they were not considered persons under the law.
It
wouldn't be until April 13, 1925, before women would earn the right to vote in
this province. And when they did, Mr. Speaker, earn the right to vote, the
voting age for men was 21 and the voting age for women was 25. Sometimes I think
as young girls we mature quicker than men, Mr. Speaker, so I don't know why we
had to wait four more years before we were able to vote.
You
know, some of the struggle, some of the tremendous struggle of those early women
who fought for women's right to vote, that followed the courage of their
convictions, said if we are going to take better control of our own destiny,
then we have to be a part of the political process. It's really, really
admirable. I've been inspired by it, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of quotes
by powerful women that in these early days pushed for that right to vote. And
what they were up against, Mr. Speaker, was foolishness. Like there will be more
broken homes, we're likely to see an increase in alcohol consumption. All of
this is what they were dealing with before in order for a woman to have the
right to vote.
So, Mr.
Speaker, if we believe that women are equal citizens with the same rights and
capabilities as men, if we believe that women are equal citizens with the same
rights and capabilities, we should all be doing everything we can to encourage
our mothers, our sisters, our daughters and our friends to run for public
office.
Last
Thursday, myself and some of my female colleagues here in the Chamber from all
parties, we, and in partnership with groups like YWCA, with the Provincial
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, we hosted what I think was a fantastic
day, and 38 young women from around the province spent the day in the Chamber.
The day was made up of a panel where we heard from some real-life experiences
from female MHAs, some of the barriers, some of the things they had to contend
with. There were different speakers. And we ended with a lovely evening at
Government House where their honours also spoke in a very inspirational way,
encouraging these young women to support their dreams and follow their goals,
and talked about the benefits of being in public office.
Mr.
Speaker, that afternoon we used an hour to do a debate. I sat in the chair and I
watched these young ladies debate, and I thought to myself, the future is in
good hands. These young ladies were so capable, competent. They spoke so fluid
and articulate, knowledgeable of their subject, and I can't wait for some of
these young ladies to take their seat here in the Chamber.
I did
say to them we're talking today about encouraging women, supporting women in
leadership roles. I did say to them, just like we need more women, it would not
be healthy or a balance to have all women at the table either. It's about having
that balance, Mr. Speaker. Right now we're under-represented. We need better
equality, but it's about having both, because when we have diversity of thought,
diversity of leadership styles, we are better governed and we have more
sustainable growth.
Mr.
Speaker, I've read this many times, I've lived it, I've experienced it women
in government, they seem to come to the job with an agenda of productivity. Get
in, get it done, get out. Because most of the time we've got a whole bunch of
other stuff to do as well. Their goals are not as quibble over ideological
differences, but to talk, listen and compromise in order to pass comprehensive
legislation.
Leaders,
Mr. Speaker, need to represent those they are leading. And all too often,
decisions that affect women, their families and societies are made without women
having a voice. This is what this is all about today, Mr. Speaker. We need the
increase in women's voice; not only at the table here in the Legislature, we
need it at municipal tables, we need it at the various committees and boards
around the province.
The
under-representation renders public policy unable to properly take women's
concerns into account. Mr. Speaker, I gave a story that relates to what I'm
about to say. Women tend to care about the more human issues: child care; health
care; education. Something that I've always wanted to do, through the years, is
when I see young women, encourage them to follow their dreams, to step into
leadership roles. And I remember many years ago saying to a young girl: You
should run for council. It was in my community, and she said: What do they do
besides collect garbage?
Long
story short, Mr. Speaker, she went on to run; she did many wonderful things
across the country. She got on other boards; she now works with the town of
Holyrood. But I said you have a young child, you want to bring some programs
into your community and you just find something to connect with them on, Mr.
Speaker, and to make them passionate about their cause.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I see my time is almost gone. I will clue up at the end and I will use
the next portion of my speaking to talk about some of the barriers that are
still there. Barriers that we need to work together to overcome. The first time
I ran for this public office in 2013, myself and the now-Premier, we went into a
little community, into a little garage where a number of older men were, and one
of the gentlemen looked at me and he said: So you're the little girl that wants
to be the next Member.
Well, I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there was a big bear that rose up inside me that day,
and there was a lot of syllables that came out of my mouth in a short period of
time because these are some of the things now if we had had a big man of
stature walk in, I doubt that he would have had anything said to him about his
size or anything else. But anyway that's the stuff that makes us women more
determined than ever to go out, and not only to win but to win with a resounding
majority and then we need to encourage more women
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
to be at the table with us,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure and an honour for me to stand and speak to this motion
before the House today, and I certainly stand in support of this resolution,
along with all of my hon. colleagues. And it was quite enjoyable to listen to
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair speak about last week's day that we
had with these 38 phenomenal young women, who I have no doubt will be leaders of
tomorrow. And I, too, share with her in looking forward to the day when they do
sit here in the seats of this Chamber and continue to lead our province to even
greater things, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt about it, these 38 young women and
many, many more are out there and have a lot to contribute to government at all
levels.
The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador certainly, though, ought not need urging
to encourage participation of women in leadership and political roles in our
province. But if it's going to take urging for the government to act, then we
are certainly here and ready to do that, as are other groups and individuals
both inside and outside of government, because a lot more is needed to get more
women here at the table.
Last
year, through Honour 100, we marked the sacrifices of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in the First World War, a conflict that led to the reshaping of the
political order of the entire world. That war ended in 1918, but incredibly it
was still another seven years before women were allowed to vote in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
As the
Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador website states, although many of the
country's newspapers supported women's suffrage by the 1920s, the League still
encountered much resistance from government officials, particularly Liberal
Prime Minister Sir Richard Squires.
When the
Legislature debated a franchise bill in 1921, the government easily defeated it,
by a vote of 13 Liberals against 9 Conservatives. So we've always been quite
strong, Mr. Speaker, in support of women. Following their 1921 defeat though, at
the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, the League members did not give up.
They spent the next few years accumulating support for their petition, and by
1925 they had gathered 20,000 signatures. By then, charges of corruption had
driven Squires from office, and Walter S. Monroe was the country's new prime
minister.
Aware
that Monroe and some of his cabinet were sympathetic to the suffragist cause,
League members once again lobbied government officials for support. Monroe
introduced a franchise bill to the Legislature in 1925 and this time, it passed
unanimously on March 9 and became law on April 13.
Imagine,
1925 there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians alive today who were born at a
time when women were denied the right to vote or run for office just because
they were women. Hard for women such as myself to believe, Mr. Speaker, and I'm
ever so grateful of the efforts of these women.
In fact,
women would probably have waited even longer than that, had there not been those
women of courage and fortitude who were prepared to fight for equality and
justice, and simply were not going to give up. Those who waged that fight were
no doubt labelled rabble-rousers, or worse, for daring to upset the apple cart.
But
sometimes, apple carts need to be upset. A democracy that denies some citizens
the right to shape it and lead it on grounds that are unreasonably
discriminatory, like gender, is not really a true democracy at all. The
representative government we had from 1832 to 1855 was not truly representative.
The responsible government we gained in 1855 was not truly democratic. Even in
1925, it was not equal. Men could vote at age 21, but women had to be 25. That
inequity did not get corrected until 1946. But 1925 was a major step forward.
And in
the next election, on October 29, 1928, a total of 52,343 Newfoundland and
Labrador women cast ballots in their first general election, representing a 90
per cent voter turnout rate. Let's keep in mind, on April 13, when we celebrate
the 92nd anniversary of women gaining the right to vote in Newfoundland and
Labrador, the incredible efforts of the women who led the suffrage movement so
that all of us, as a people, could benefit.
In 1930,
Lady Helena Squires won a by-election, and she became the first woman to ever
sit in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. I often wonder how
she would feel to know that today, 87 years later, 10 of our 40 MHAs are women,
and 3 of our 13 Cabinet ministers are women. And I often wonder: Would she be
impressed, or disappointed? Because roughly half the people in our province are
women; and I would love to see the day when roughly half the people in the House
of Assembly are also women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
We need to aspire to achieve
parity in Parliament and in leadership roles in our society. But how do we
achieve that?
On March
9, 1992, NDP Member Jack Harris gave notice of a private Member's resolution
that the House of Assembly support the principle of representation by two
Members per district, one woman and one man without increasing the number of
legislative seats. As we all know, that did not transpire, but it's the type of
innovative thinking that I think we need to continue to explore to identify ways
that we can bring more women here into the House of Assembly.
This was
one possible approach but it certainly didn't anticipate, I guess, the way we
see gender in the 21st century. We do need approaches that will make a
difference. Why is it that men and women do not already have parity in
Parliament and leadership positions in our province? To get that answer we need
to look at the barriers women face. To get at solutions, we need to consider
approaches that have proven to work.
I'm also
going to take a quick look at some of the barriers. I believe the greatest
barrier facing women is deeply entrenched sexism. It has been pointed out and
talked about for decades but it remains an enormous problem in our society. It
manifests itself in so many ways.
We've
heard women in leadership roles talk about the battles they've faced, the
attacks they've endured. Premiers Kathleen Wynne, Rachel Notley, Christy Clark,
Kathy Dunderdale, all subjected to ridicule in terms that were fundamentally
sexist, criticized for what they wore. When was the last time you heard a man
criticized for what he was wearing?
We saw
it in the recent US presidential election campaign, a campaign that seemed to
set things back 100 years in terms of respectful behaviour. We see it in popular
culture. It is shameful that in 2017, nearly two decades into the 21st century,
we still have to deal with stereotypes that women can't lead; can't deal with
challenges rationally and unemotionally; can't deal with complex mathematical,
financial, analytical and administrative problems. Because we all know that is
not true. It is shameful that women in positions of command are criticized for
being too tough, like they're portraying their femininity. Like they have a
character flaw that means they can't be trusted.
I
believe women in leadership roles are subject to a kind of attack that most men
in leadership roles are spared, and the difference is grounded in prejudices
that are gender based. So how do we successfully combat these stereotypes? How
do we stop seeing being a woman, being able to lead as polar opposites, as if
you have to forego one in order to be the other?
I think
we have to get out of our way to showcase women who have already stepped forward
to lead and elevate them as role models that women and men, boys and girls,
should admire and emulate. We have to showcase them in popular culture. We have
to showcase them to our children, through the way we educate them. I'd like to
see us bring women leaders into our schools: to talk about leadership to our
children, to talk about how they have approached challenges, and how they have
resolved them. And this will achieve two things; firstly, these lessons are
transferable. Every child faces conflicts and successful strategies for leaders
can also be successful strategies for individuals in day-to-day situations.
Secondly, it makes the reality of leadership imaginable for children. They can
picture themselves in the boardroom, or in charge of a team facing a challenge.
What strategies work? When do I listen? When do I delegate? How do I inspire?
How do I achieve a consensus? How do I face a tough choice? These are the types
of education, Mr. Speaker, and conversations we need to be having with our young
children, boys and girls.
When
you're asked to picture yourself in the leader's shoes, taking on the leader's
challenges, then that's when the gears start turning and fires of leadership
start burning. There's not just one way to lead. There are many. Different
people will lead differently and different situations call for different types
of leadership. But the most important reason we need women in leadership roles
is that we need to be able to draw on all those styles of leadership and
approaches in order to face the challenges before us in the most effective way
possible and that will deliver the best results.
For too
much of human history, societies have been led by leaders who've relied on
top-down chains of command. Very dictatorial and very militaristic. I don't
think it's a coincidence that in the era of universal suffrage, we've been
seeing a shift toward roundtable decision-making based on dialogue and
consensus. We've seen styles of leadership that are about nurturing and
mentorship. Now, not all women lead with this style, but some do. And it's an
asset we bring to the table. We need to be flexible enough as a society to
change the way our systems function so the new styles of leadership can be
tested and tried.
If we
create an atmosphere of true openness and tolerance, devoid of harassment and
belligerent conflict, many women who currently choose to stay to the side will
come forward. And I truly believe that, Mr. Speaker, because they look at some
of the things that happen in Parliament and they say, I'm not signing up for
that foolishness. We as Parliamentarians have a responsibility to stop that
foolishness, to put real business on the table, get rid of the games, and that
way I do believe more women will come to the table.
We need
to get out of our way and create a welcoming atmosphere. It is not just about
family-friendly time schedules. It's also about respect for one another, and we
have to start that right here in our own House and lead by example.
There
have been many nasty things said on the floor of this very House by Members now
sitting in this Chamber that have contributed to the or sitting in this
Chamber over the years, that have contributed to the toxic atmosphere that women
face. Some people can tolerate that and some people will be no part of it. It is
not for the belligerent and disrespectful to decide who gets to lead our
province.
Those
who consider themselves to be strong have no right to bully those that they
consider to be weak. We need to stand up to bullying, not just in the classroom
but also in the boardroom, in the public forum and right here in this very
Chamber. And this includes bullying of municipal councillors and mayors as well.
We've seen that right here.
We saw
bullying against the past administrations, the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, the kind of language that crossed the line. Those who insist on bullying
others should be called on it and told either to stop or leave. None of us
should have tolerance for such bullying of each other or anyone else.
I
believe one reason that bullying is more likely to drive women from politics and
leadership roles is that women understand that violence, disproportionately,
targets women. Women have a good reason to feel unsafe when situations get
threatening. It is natural for people to gravitate away from situations when
they feel unsafe.
If some
people pollute an environment with violent words and violent behaviour, many
women will avoid that place, so will many men, whether it's a boardroom, or a
Legislature, or a working environment like a fire hall, or barracks, or
construction site or whatever. And remember, violence is quite often disguised
with what might seem like humour and fun and play, but it's anything but funny
to the people who feel that. Buried in the joke is a subtle threat directed at
them.
Jokes
that imply sexual assault, jokes that imply ridicule or ostracism based on
physical features, all of these are examples of violence that poison an
environment. Good people, potentially top-notch leaders are being denied to the
people of our province and our country and our world because some people choose
to poison workplace environments and other people choose to tolerate that.
Our
government ran an ad campaign about teaching our children to respect women. The
Violence Prevention Initiative was a response to that legitimate need. It must
not be sidelined or curtailed. It is a tangible action that the provincial
government needs to be taking and the very thing we're talking about in this
resolution.
It is so
important, Mr. Speaker and I know my time is winding down; there's so much
more I'd like to say. But it's so important that we cultivate respectable
environments where we need women to be working and leading because, otherwise,
some very capable women are going to remain outside.
Mr.
Speaker, as a woman who has long believed in leadership, it's not about being a
woman; it's about the fact that we are equal. We are equally as intelligent,
equally as capable, equally as competent, and I believe that we here in this
House of Assembly need to take the leadership, show the way. Let's stop bullying
right here; let's encourage more women to the table.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly is great to be back, and it certainly is very important to speak to
such a PMR as this one. But I will start by saying that whether we think we can,
or whether we think we can't, we are right. I am a strong believer that what we
think about, we can bring about.
So
again, I'm very pleased to speak to this private Member's resolution. And I am
committed to doing as much as I can in my role as MHA, as citizen of my
community, and a woman to do as much as I can to help encourage, promote and
help guide every woman in my district and across our province. Every woman who
comes to my door or makes a phone call to me, I certainly will do everything I
can within my role to help make their goals reality.
As we
know, and as my colleagues just mentioned, women are still a minority in many
professions, especially here in politics. I mean, look no further than our own
Newfoundland and Labrador legislature. As we look around the room, we have 40
elected officials here in the room, and only 10 of those are women. So that
certainly needs to change.
We are
here today, of course, to promote and to urge our government and to ensure
increased participation of women in leadership roles and political roles. I
guess, I'll tell my story. I am very proud, of course, and proud of my district,
and proud to say that I have become the very first female MHA to be elected in
my area of what was Port de Grave, but now the district is Harbour Grace Port
de Grave.
I'll
talk about my nomination. Back, just following 2013, names started coming
forward, and we saw the interest come forward for nominations across the entire
province. But in my particular district, which was Port de Grave at the time,
there were six candidates, and two of those were women. It was certainly a long,
drawn-out battle. Lots of campaigning, lots of running around promoting, meeting
with as many organizations as I possibly could; I was up against some tough
competition.
Actually, there were two particular candidates who were running for this
nomination who came from big political families in the area. Fortunately, with
the support of my family, my friends and everybody who came together for me, I
managed to pull out that win to become the nominee for the area. I'm proud to
say that the other female nominee or who ran for the nomination, rather, Ms.
Katherine Crane, came forward and she became a prominent member of my campaign
team and is still very supportive today.
I want
to mention how important that is. How important it is for us women to stick
together. I'll use the example of reality shows that we see on television, such
as Survivor or
Big Brother. I'm sure some of us watch those. I know it do when they
come on, but we notice even in reality shows, in such shows like this, the
women, they don't tend to stick together and they're quickly picked off in these
shows. It's something worth noting that we have to support one another to become
successful. We achieve the greatest results by working together.
Having
said that, throughout my life, I've had some great role models some support
from men, of course. Actually, when I did secure the nomination, my colleague,
the Minister of Justice, was very supportive of me, I must say, and did
everything he could to help and to promote and came to the district. That's a
great example. We have a lot of great male colleagues here in our caucus and
even across the floor over there with our all-party committees and whatnot.
Again, I am very proud to say that it is a first for the District of Harbour
Grace Port de Grave.
Also, to
highlight some powerful women in leadership roles in my district, there was a
past president of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, Ms. Judy
Morrow, who is a very strong lawyer in the area. Of course, as we know, Judy has
a very strong personality and she certainly gets the job done.
But the
beginning of my journey began, of course, with my very first support system,
that being my family, my immediate family: my mom and my dad and my sister and
my two grandmothers in particular. My Nanny Healey, I'll talk about, who just
passed away recently, had 13 children. That in itself, I call that leadership, I
mean, to raise a family of 13 children who've all managed to do okay in life and
to become good people and good members of the community.
Now,
perhaps my grandmother was a bit biased. I mean, she stood by me throughout my
political journey, as well as at the beginning of the nomination and through the
election. She was with me that night of the election as the votes were coming in
and also during the nomination as the numbers were coming in. In her eyes, I
could do no wrong. Maybe she was a bit biased, but I will never forget her
unconditional support.
Every
time she looked at me, when I was travelling to university in Halifax or whether
it be something I was doing in high school at Ascension Collegiate in Bay
Roberts, and then when I embarked on my political journey, just that look she
had in her eyes, every time she looked at me, how encouraging that was. It was
just this never doubting, never-ending faith that she had in me that I could
certainly do whatever I really put my mind to. So that will stay with me for the
rest of my life.
Certainly, by my mother, my own mother, I was encouraged to strive and to do the
best I possibly could in everything I put my hand to, especially in my
academics. My mother was adamant about everything I did in school, how important
it was to study, and to have plans going forward for what I wanted to do when I
finished high school and whatnot. She would consistently remind me to do my
homework and to study the lessons of the day and also in music.
I was
fortunate enough my sister and I, Erin, were fortunate enough to have parents
who encouraged us to be involved in extra-curricular activities, especially
music. And I certainly believe that anything that parents can get their young
children involved in, daughters, it certainly contributes to the character they
become, and to their confidence, going forward. I mean, every opportunity to
speak in front of a crowd, or to get out there and learn how to play a musical
instrument or figure skating I was a figure skater growing up. I wanted to
play hockey, was my true desire but back in that time, in the late '80s, early
'90s, it wasn't necessarily common for young women to play hockey, especially in
the minor hockey associations.
So at
first, I figure skated, but then at age 13 I started playing hockey. And at age
36, I still play today. And I love it. Now it's so refreshing to see young girls
coming up through the minor hockey. We've had amazing hockey players come from
my area. I'll name one, Ms. Ashlee Drover of Bay Roberts, who went away to the
United States on a hockey scholarship. The same as, actually my teammate, Ms.
Peggy Wakeham, who also travelled I think to Vermont and went on a hockey
scholarship, and she plays in the league and certainly that is a leadership
role. She's also a referee in many of the leagues in the metro area and
Conception Bay North.
So
sports also certainly contribute. And I can't talk about figure skating and not
mention our Newfoundland and Labrador's own, of course, Kaetlyn Osmond, who is
now leading us on a national stage, international stage, doing so well, and
again it's a leadership role. These young children I have a young figure
skater coming up for my district by the name of Ms. Jenna Efford. She's
outstanding. She travels now outside of the province and throughout the country
to really contribute to her skill. Again, these are true leadership roles and
skills.
Lots of
encouragement for young girls to play, as I mentioned; sports is really huge to
increase confidence in young girls coming up. Also in high school, I guess it
was my type of personality, I've always been driven I think I was born this
way. The moment I came into the world, whatever I saw or whatever I wanted, I
set my sights on and I was determined to go after them.
I'll
take my university career for example. I happened to be a political science
major and it was in my courses, I guess, learning about Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
as I've mentioned before, then I decided this is something I really want to do
throughout my life, at some point in time in my career, to put myself out for
public office.
Then
during my summer jobs, again, I was a tour guide on the Harbour Hopper in
Halifax. That was an outgoing role that you're speaking all the time; you're
meeting people. So again, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to push
yourself out of those comfort zones and to speak and to put yourself in front of
crowds as much as possible.
I
attended university at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax and, actually,
The Mount has about an 80 per cent female enrolment. At that university, there's
about 80 per cent female but, ironically, the major I selected, political
science, I was the minority. There were mostly men in my major, in my department
there for political science.
I then
went on to study journalism at Kingstec in Nova Scotia in the Annapolis Valley,
and I remember lessons from and lectures from my then professor, Yvonne Colbert,
and Jan MacKinnon, who were both players in the industry prior to becoming
instructors. I remember learning, of course, about the stereotypes and the
boundaries that we would then even have to overcome and face as journalists.
I'll
never forget my instructor saying that men typically have an easier time in
broadcast roles. I'll use the example, body types and body size. It was said by
my professor that a man can get away with being a bit overweight as opposed to a
woman on television. I mean, whether it's right or it's wrong, it's unfortunate,
but we see examples of it. I'll never forget that and I remember thinking wow,
that's the first time I've heard that said, but I guess it's a smack in the face
in a way.
Having
said this, as I've gone through my schooling career, my academic career, there
were some fantastic women in leadership roles at the CBC where I've done my
school internships. I'll use the example for CBC Halifax, Ms. Nancy Waugh. She
took me in, set me up for my first internship. She was the producer of CBC TV in
Halifax. I must say she was very admirable and it's great to see a woman lead
that team, that news team. She was a leader.
Of
course, our very own Debbie Cooper here at CBC, been a long-time host here at
CBC Here and Now. That was my first
journalism job when I returned to Newfoundland and Labrador following my school
career. Debbie was so kind to me. I actually sat next to Debbie in the newsroom
and she was always very helpful and encouraging and I can't say enough about
her. Marilyn Boone was also a producer over at CBC and it's great again to see
women in these roles. Cathy Porter of CBC Radio was also the boss, as we like to
say.
But
again, I have to mention here a man who did have a big impact on my career, my
journalism career, and that is the late John Furlong. Being a man, he was very
encouraging and he did everything he could to reach out to a young journalist
like myself to give me a chance, to give me opportunity and kind of teach me
some tricks of the trade. So there are some wonderful men, as I've mentioned,
who do have a great lasting impact on the people we become.
Look no
further than our own prime minister, Justin Trudeau. When questioned by the
media about why Justin wanted to put equal representation of women in his
cabinet than men, what was his reply? Because it's 2016. That's what it was at
the time. So that's refreshing to see our prime minister, of course, lead that.
And it made headlines; it made news across our country, throughout our provinces
and whatnot.
Also in
our very own districts, I have a lot of great women as well, but not enough.
Again, I can't emphasize enough, we need more women at every level of politics,
municipal and provincial. Also, throughout my district, we're starting to see
more women become involved in such as firefighting, volunteer firefighting. The
Spaniard's Bay volunteer fire department has now more women coming forward.
There's one woman on the Upper Island Cove volunteer squad, of course, Ms.
Rebecca Mercer. I commend her. She's the only girl there, but we want to see
more of that. And we have women also, I have to name Sonia Williams of Harbour
Grace who is also a town councillor and a volunteer firefighter. So it's
refreshing to see these women in leadership roles, but we need to see more.
Each
town council, they may have one or two women, so everything we can do and
colleagues, it's our obligation and it's our responsibility as MHAs, we are role
models, it's our duty to make ourselves accessible to the people in our
districts and to do everything we can. I know I enjoy taking every opportunity
to get to a school, whether it's to talk with young people then and to really
tell these children and it was told to me, I remember. Toni-Marie Wiseman
visited Ascension Collegiate when I was a student at Ascension and she made an
impression on me. And I will say, another powerful woman in a leadership role
here. Toni-Marie has been a prominent face at NTV for quite some time. When I
worked with Toni-Marie at the Newfoundland Broadcasting Corporation, again, she
was very helpful and it's refreshing to see.
So I
can't encourage us enough, I mean, men and women, we need to get out there, we
need to get on the ground, meet with our organizations. I know I do and I
certainly enjoy it throughout our district at every opportunity to be
accessible, to talk to our school groups, as young as primary school. I often
visit Coley's Point Primary School in my district and I have a lot of bright,
young students who I'm very proud of there. And I will do everything I can to
promote their education, to promote their confidence, you name it, I will
certainly do it.
Look
around the room here that we have, we have a lot of great women here in our very
own Legislature. Of course, we can't name them by name but by district:
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the Member started off this PMR and she's going to
close it. That's great. We've got the minister of children, social development,
seniors not right in that order. And over here in Burin Grand Bank, Harbour
Main, right next to me; across the way, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, St. John's
Centre; and Fortune Bay Cape La Hune woo hoo.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. P. PARSONS:
Oh, yeah, absolutely, our
Finance Minister. I missed her there. And the Minister of Natural Resources. So
we have a lot of great women here and I know these girls should I say the
girls and myself we are committed to doing everything we can to promote this.
So I certainly look forward to the co-operation of each and every Member here in
this wonderful House of Assembly to support this private Member's resolution,
and we need to do as much as we can, of course, to and maybe someday we'll
look across the room and we'll have an even keel, maybe we'll have a balance of
50-50 of female MHAs along with our strong colleagues, our male colleagues.
So
again, thank you, it is a privilege to speak to this resolution. Always great to
stand up here and represent the great District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
I will take my seat, and I look forward to seeing the co-operation of all
Members here today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to this private Member's motion and today, being March
1, we are exactly a week away from International Women's Day, which will be
celebrated all over the world and there'll be a number of activities that will
celebrated to acknowledge the great gains that women have made across the
planet.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things, I have been a long-time feminist activist, and I
often say I was a breach birth, so I know that there's more than one way of
doing things and more than one way of arriving.
The
hard-won rights of women and one of the things I have learned as a feminist
activist over the years is that our rights are never given to us. We have to
work so hard for them. We work so incredibly hard. We work with passion. We work
with compassion. We work with expertise and brilliance.
And we
know that for the survival of our communities, it is so important to look at the
table where decisions are made and say, who is not at the table. Because we know
how crucial it is, absolutely crucial, that the diversity of our communities is
represented wherever decisions are made on how we make decisions about how we
live together as communities. Without that, our decision making is impoverished.
To not have parity of women at the table where decisions are made is like going
through life with one hand over one eye, that we do not get the whole picture.
That's
why it's so important that around our tables where these decisions are made,
that women are at the tables, that indigenous First Nations people are at the
tables, that racialized people are at the tables, that people with incredible
wealth are at the tables but that's mostly who's at the tables now that
people without wealth are at the tables. That younger people, older people,
working people, people with disabilities, the diversity of our communities must
be represented at the tables.
That's
what feminism is about, Madam Speaker. Feminism is about looking at the tables
to see who's not there and then not only to just sit there and say: wow,
wouldn't it be nice if there were more women at the table. It's not just about
saying wow, wouldn't it be nice if there were more people of colour around the
table; wouldn't it be nice if there were more indigenous people, First Nations
people around the table.
Feminism
is about doing whatever it is we can to ensure the blocks and barriers that keep
the diversity of our communities from getting to those tables that's what
feminism is about, actively removing blocks and barriers. Identifying them
first, helping to remove them and then also helping to empower the people who
are not at the table. Giving them what they need, finding what it is we need to
ensure that the people we need at the table can get to the table.
I could
only wish, Madam Speaker, if the people at home could see my desk right now.
I've actually spread my papers over onto the desk of my colleague, the Member
for St. John's East Quidi Vidi. I've got papers all over the floor. I have all
kinds of documents that talk about what's being done all over the world to
ensure not just oh, wouldn't it be nice, but to ensure that women are at the
tables where decisions are being made.
What are
the blocks and barriers? What do we do about it? What are the resources that are
needed by women in order to be elected into positions of decision making, to be
supported in their campaigns? How do we change our Legislatures so it makes it
more possible for women to be at the table? How do we do our business so it
makes it more possible for women's voices to be part of the decision-making
process?
I was
here, Madam Speaker, last week when the Daughters of the Vote had their
conference, and it was a thrill because I sat up close to where you were and the
other side of the House was filled with young women; bright, passionate,
compassionate, skilled, expert young women filing all the seats on the other
side of the House. What a pleasure it was, how exciting it was to look there and
see women occupying those seats.
It was
in such contrast to what we see here today, because we only have 10 women in our
House of Assembly. And we've been at this a long time, since 1949. And Canada
has been at it for a much longer time, for 150 years. At this rate, how long
will it take at the rate that we are gaining women in our Legislatures, how
long will it take before we reach parity?
It isn't
going to just happen. It doesn't just happen. Rights and progress doesn't just
happen. It needs concrete measures. That's what I would like to help the Member
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair I was kind of excited to read her motion, her
private Member's motion. We all want to see more women here in the House of
Assembly. We all want to see more women in positions of power.
Basically, what we have here is a private Member's motion that says, wouldn't it
be nice. Well, I believe we all think wouldn't it be nice, but it doesn't just
happen. And the young women who attended the workshop last week told us about
the blocks and barriers they experience, and we know them.
I have a
fabulous paper here that's from an international consortium where they called
together representatives from a number of countries; from every continent in the
world to look at what are the blocks and barriers to women achieving full
equality in their parliamentary procedures and what needs to be done. It's not
just about thinking, wouldn't it be nice. There are very concrete measures, and
I would encourage people to read this.
Gender-based analysis; the missed opportunities we've had already in this House
where the gender-based analysis was not applied to the budget. A gender-based
analysis was not applied to the procurement act. A gender-based analysis was not
applied to the Independent Appointments Commission, where they just newly
appointed to the board of Nalcor three women and eight men, and not a single
person from Labrador, and not a single indigenous First Nations person. Without
using concrete tools, this private Member's motion is meaningless.
It's
sort of like the only analysis I could think of would be like the hon. Member
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, who I truly believe is committed to ensuring
that there are more women in our House of Assembly and in leadership roles and
in our agencies, boards and commissions I believe she wants that to happen.
But basically her private Member's motion says that this hon. House urges the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage increased participation of
women in leadership and political roles.
It's not
enough. It's somewhat meaningless unless we identify and put our money where our
mouth is. There are a number of measures this government can do to make that a
reality. And it's not going to happen just by saying we're going to encourage
women to do it because women want to be here. They don't need encouragement;
they need the blocks and barriers that prevent them from being elected
addressed. Poverty, child care, wage disparity, home care, that's what women
need in order to be able to fully participate, not only in this House, but in
our communities.
Without
anything to remove the blocks and barriers, without anything to empower women
and give women the resources they need in order to address the systemic
discrimination that still exists, this is meaningless. So it's sort of like the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, in all sincerity, saying to the women
in her district, I want you to come to the House of Assembly, I want you to come
to St. John's and I'm giving you a car. However, there is no engine in that car
and there is no gas in the gas tank, but somehow you've got to get that car
here. And that's what this private Member's motion is like.
I
applaud the emotion and the intent, but there is no engine in the car, there is
no fuel in the gas tank. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I propose an amendment, a
friendly amendment to your private Member's motion, one that I would think you
would absolutely support and encourage because it's about putting an engine in
that car, it's about putting gas in that tank so that we can go beyond just
saying we're going to encourage women to be elected, we are going to say we are
going to put measures in place so that women in fact can be elected.
So I
propose an amendment, seconded by the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi,
as follows:
The
proposed resolution is amended at the last clause by adding immediately after
the word roles the words and commas by immediately making changes to the
operations of the government by bringing to this Honorable House proposed
amendments to the Independent Appointments
Commission Act which provide for a gender balance for appointment
recommendations and by applying a workable, Gender-based Analysis Tool to the
process of applying the Public Procurement
Act when it is proclaimed, and preparing the annual budget of the province
with a gender-based analysis tool.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for St. John's Centre has put forth an amendment to the resolution that
we're debating today, so this House will take a brief recess to consider the
amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
The
amendment is deemed out of order. As stated on page 766 of O'Brien and Bosc, an
amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
And I'm
not surprised by that ruling. I somewhat expected it because it changed the
private Member's motion in a substantive way, substantially. Because there isn't
any substance to the private Member's motion. There's no substance at all. There
is no teeth in this. It is merely kind of window dressings or fairy dust or
something about wouldn't it be nice, government can encourage women.
Mr.
Speaker, again, we have a gender-based analysis tool in this province that
wasn't used on the procurement legislation, which is so important. It wasn't
used on last year's budget. I know that to be true because I did an ATIPP two
ATIPPs as a matter of fact and there was no evidence whatsoever that the
gender-based analysis tool was used. And there's no gender analysis done on the
Independent Appointments Commission. Those are incredibility missed
opportunities. This government missed those opportunities. They did not stand up
for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want
to quote from the international document that I referred to earlier in debate
and it says: If we believe and support the statement that women have the right
to equal political participation then what we must do to ensure that, to ensure
that the blocks and barriers to women's full participation are removed and that
measures are put in place to help facilitate and ensure so women will have full,
equal political participation.
So what
I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for every Member in this House to take
responsibility to ensure that blocks and barriers are removed and to ensure that
women have what they need. Let's not just give them a car with no engine and
with no fuel; let's make sure that we put fuel in the gas tank and that there is
an engine in the car.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly an honour to stand here in my place today and support my colleague,
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, on her resolution and to speak
about the importance of women in politics but certainly, generally, women in
leadership roles across our society.
I heard
the comment earlier by the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave that women
must support women but I also believe that so must men. I've had the fortunate
pleasure to have strong women in my life, my entire life: my two grandmothers;
one a mother of 13 and another a mother of six. In fact, my grandmother, I call
her the chief letter writer in Bar Haven Island in Placentia Bay. She would be
the women that people would turn to, to write her letters. She always taught me
that the pen was mightier than the sword.
We have
so many role models in our own personal lives that I think it's important to
recognize my own mother. A strong career woman, a teacher, an administrator and
someone who got married back in the early '80s and kept her own name. She still
has her own name to this day. That's a woman of independence, Mr. Speaker, and a
woman who I admire a great deal. Of course, I have one sibling, a sister, who is
a teacher and someone who I respect greatly.
So we
all have those personal stories, Mr. Speaker, and we can all relate to that.
Indeed, in my own work life, my first boss was the federal minister, Judy Foote,
someone who I look up to as a role model and certainly as a mentor, determined
and strong politician in her own right. Of course, everyone knows the shared
work history of myself and the Member for Burin Grand Bank who I have always
looked to as another strong woman in my life. She's someone who, when I worked
with her, juggled many issues and files, and still does. It's one of her many
talents.
Beyond
that, here in the Legislature, we have excellent colleagues: the Member for
Harbour Main, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the Member for
Windsor Lake, the Member for Burin Grand Bank, Harbour Grace Port de Grave,
Placentia St. Mary's, and of course Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, St. John's
Centre and St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
So we
know about that, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to stand here today I'm not going
to take a lot of time, but I think it's very important that we look to the women
in our lives and the women who we work with. My campaign manager, Mary Hodder,
was the first female Deputy Speaker here in the House of Assembly. We have
another female Deputy Speaker and probably the first one to take the Chair as
Acting Speaker for a day, and she did a terrific job, just before Christmas, at
that.
I think
that we can all look to women in our lives and as leaders in our communities; we
need to do that. I'm certainly saying that there are barriers to women becoming
elected, much like young people, financial and otherwise, so I identify with
those issues.
I think
everything that we can do, Mr. Speaker, to help support women because I know
that's our goal. We want a Legislature that has young people in it, that has
more women in it, more Indigenous persons, persons with disabilities, persons of
visible minorities. And when we achieve that, we truly will have a diverse
Legislature.
I'm not
going to take up any more time, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to say to all of
our female Members, you do an excellent job at bringing perspectives to the
table. I will say that I am in full support of the resolution. I hope that we
all support it.
Mr.
Speaker, with that, I will take my seat.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for acknowledging me, and I appreciate my colleague across the House sitting
down early, not using his time, because in private Members' resolutions, we're
on a short time; but I still get my 15 minutes, now that he hasn't used up his
time. So I appreciate that, giving me a chance, because I do have a fair bit I
want to say about this resolution this afternoon. I think it's a very important
one.
If
people are just tuning in the BE IT RESOLVED part of this resolution is: BE
IT RESOLVED
that this
hon. House urges the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage increased participation of women in
leadership and political roles.
My colleague for Fortune Bay
Cape La Hune behind me, earlier, I believe, referenced and expressed her concern
or suggested her concern about why it is that the House should have to urge
government to do that when a government really should be taking a leadership
role in encouraging women to take leadership roles themselves, not only in
politics but leadership roles in communities, business and in government as
well.
There are many examples, and
we've heard from Members in the House this afternoon, where women have been
important in the lives of all of us. How true is that? They certainly have been,
and they've played an important role. They certainly played an important role
and continue to do so in my work life and my home life as well. We should
encourage women to participate in leadership roles.
During our time in government
Members opposite always like to talk about when we were in government, so I'm
take the opportunity to do that this afternoon because when we were in
government and my colleague earlier referenced former Premier Kathy
Dunderdale, who was the first woman to hold office as premier in our province.
There have been lot of examples of women across the country now
and, currently, there are
women as well who are premiers in the country.
Premier
Dunderdale had a very strong focus on exactly this very topic and this very
importance of encouraging and creating a climate where women have opportunities
in leadership roles. The NLOWE proves itself and proves that the women have the
drive and talent and ideas to success; a great organization that supports women
entrepreneurs for Newfoundland and Labrador and they do very, very good work.
Premier
Dunderdale herself, while she was premier, led the first Ovations. It was in
2012 it was announced that Ovations would take place. It occurred in early 2013.
Ovations was about applauding and recognizing the accomplishments of women in
communities all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but not only just in
communities in volunteer organizations but also in business and also in
government.
There
was some 700 people attended the afternoon forum; some 800 participated in the
dinner event, part of Ovations. Ovations didn't end with just the one-day
discussion about the importance of women. There were a significant number of
important women, strong women who've proven themselves in leadership roles that
attended and participated in Ovations.
People
like Zoe Yujnovich, who was the president and CEO of IOC at the time; Krystin
Pellerin, well known to many of us is an accomplished actor who has done very,
very well for herself, not only here in the province but abroad as well; and
then there are local people so well recognized by Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians like Amy House and Kelly-Ann Evans and Dana Parsons and Janet Cull,
and a whole list of others that are very well known that participated and
attended the idea to stimulate and provide opportunities for women.
It
didn't end there; it went on to a series of lunch-and-learn events that were
carried on around the province. They happened over the months following that.
They proved to be very, very successful. There were many examples of good
lessons learned, ideas and creativity that were shared. Because having the
discussion about encouraging women to leadership roles, to politics, it's
corporate knowledge that's shared and passed on, and it grows.
I have a
constituent of mine who particularly, around the same time, had a very good
experience with Premier Dunderdale, and this grandmother sent me a note today. I
know her well and I inquired on her today and I said I remember when, and she
sent me a note today and it's regarding her granddaughter who she is the primary
caregiver for.
She
says: Kathy met, and names her granddaughter, at school in December 17, 2013
she remembers the very date, Mr. Speaker; it was so important to her, she
remembers the very date after her granddaughter had done a project on Premier
Dunderdale. The granddaughter was so happy to even be recognized, especially by
the premier, and for her to take the time out of her busy schedule and speak to
her in private and then in her classroom, she said it was unbelievable.
At the
time, the granddaughter had a loss in her family and she was still working
through that, very hard, and Premier Dunderdale had a significant, positive
impact on this young woman. She's very much a young woman today. She was humbled
as a child, at the time. She was very happy to know that the hard work that
someone does could actually come down to a level of a school child, a school
person, a young person in school.
She
actually goes on that after that, the premier did a follow-up visit at this
young lady's house and followed up with gifts the following Christmas and so on,
and they grew that relationship. But what's most important today is this young
woman whom I know I know her as well it's had a significant impact on this
young woman's life. The grandmother even points out that on the day that Premier
Dunderdale was leaving office she took the time to write a note to the young
woman.
That's
how it speaks to how leadership occurs. It has to be a focused effort and a
concentrated effort and when those bonds can be built and stimulation,
encouragement and building confidence in young women can occur, it's important
not just to do it and drop it; it has to be continuous. I know in that
particular case that's what Premier Dunderdale did. And I can tell you that
woman and I have become good friends to this day and I've heard her speak many
times about Premier Dunderdale and the impact it's had on her granddaughter.
That's the type of things that need to happen.
In
recent years, I stand to be corrected, but there was concerted effort as well to
give opportunities for women in government and leadership roles. And there was a
strategic effort to make sure that opportunities would happen. We know, Mr.
Speaker, that so often in history, we reflect on the past when a woman, a very
capable woman, and a man applied that there were so many times that if they were
equal, or sometimes when the woman was seen to be a better candidate, the man
got the job first. That should never be the case. That should never be the case.
If the woman is the best applicant, that's who should get the job and should be
successful in getting the job.
In my
time in government, I know we talked about gender balance quite frequently. And
with deputy ministers, we had achieved I think 47 per cent was the balance of
gender between women and men, which I think is very good very good. The Clerk
was a woman when we left government. Strategic, very important positions, senior
roles, important roles in government were held by women; I think 47 per cent
comes to mind. And I think that we all have to represent the desire to find that
equality in the workplace, and especially in government.
It's
interesting with Cabinet lately, and opposite the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair brought forward this motion today. I could speak to many of the
women that are here in the House because we have some very strong, capable women
there is one who sits behind me here who's a significant contributor to our
caucus, and I know how strong she is in her own district, and there are women
here who have great value.
Interesting for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and I'm going to highlight her; I
hope she doesn't mind but the Premier has been criticized for being the
Minister of Labrador Affairs, when the Member bringing forward this motion today
is a very capable parliamentarian who's done very, very well. And she's the
Deputy Speaker and does a good job absolutely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
She does an excellent job and
all her colleagues agree. And she would have been a great opportunity for the
Premier to put her in Cabinet. Because they have out of their seven female
Members in the Liberal side of the House, three are Cabinet ministers. Out of 13
Cabinet ministers, three of them are women. And she would have been a great
Cabinet minister. It fails me today to not know why he didn't do it. He could
have made her parliamentary assistant responsible for Labrador Affairs. He could
have done that as well, her being from Labrador. And he didn't do it.
I know
that the government opposite have great favour for the prime minister and for
the federal Liberal government. Because the prime minister on Cabinet day,
remember he said, it's 2016. Or was it was 2015 at the time because it was
2015 at the time when he was asked why he had gender balance in his Cabinet. And
it was an important point for him, as the prime minister, it was an important
point for him as a feminist and as a Liberal to have a balanced Cabinet. But our
government, our provincial Liberals, chose a different way to do that.
So while
we as Members of the House can encourage government we can encourage
government but for Members opposite you can do that; you don't have to come to
the House to do that. You can do that in your caucus room. You can do that in
your Cabinet. You can encourage government to take steps that would help provide
that balance, and gender balance, when you have capable, strong women available
to be Cabinet ministers.
I
pointed out one Member. I'm not going to mention any of the rest of them. I just
mentioned her because she was the one who brought forward this resolution today,
which I really felt was ironic, and I mean it in all sincerity to the Member
opposite. I found it ironic that she was bringing this forward when my bets were
that she was going to be a Cabinet minister, and for the reasons that I just
laid out to Members of the House.
So
having achieved the 47 per cent was done on a conscious effort. The government
has now gone through, I'd say, three efforts to reduce the size of the public
service. Last year, they reduced deputy ministers and assistant deputy
ministers. I don't know if there's a gender lens put on that. Maybe the Member,
when she closes debate, she could refer to that. We don't know if there's a
gender lens put on that at all or what the gender implications were.
We know
that they filled a number of those positions, either changed the titles I know
the Department of Transportation changed the title. They have a new position
over there that's senior advisor to stakeholder relations or something like,
that is a new position that was filled by a political staffer. So they filled a
number of Liberal friendlies into some of those ADM and director positions and
so on. I haven't done an analysis on the gender balance on those. It would be
interesting to do it.
Last
week, they did their new rollout of their leaner, flatter government, I think
are the right words, and we don't know if there's a gender balance there. They
did two things last week because they've gone into people, pointed a finger at
them and said: Your job is gone, pack your box up and go home. But they've also
created a circumstance were pools of employees, and we're hearing numerous
examples of this, where pools of employees now have been told over the last week
and the minister articulated this was going to happen. She said it was going
to happen over the next week, so I thought by today it would have been done but
she said over the next week.
There
are departments, by the way, who told departments and announced in departments,
everybody who's impacted have now been notified. So we know that as well. But
they've created where pools of people have been told: Okay, there are four of
you now in this office. We're reducing you to two. You're going to have to
compete for your jobs. See over the next few months how that works for you.
What a
terrible thing to do. We don't know what the gender balance is there, if there
is a gender analysis done on it. Again, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair can speak to that when she closes debate, maybe she can, but maybe we can
find out in the coming days. But what a circumstance to say to women, you have
women who work in government who are single mothers, who have young families,
who have husbands and wives who work in government.
I
understand government's desire to reduce the size of the public service. That's
not my issue. My issue is how you do it because if you create anarchy in
people's lives, you create unknown, and that third step I just referred,
creating competition in the workplaces to keep your job in the future, has
caused significant disruption to women and men and families in the public
service.
I think
that's probably been as tough on people a lot of people that I've spoken to
have said: I just wish I knew. I've talked to lots of women who said: I wish I
knew. I have to make obligations with child care and transportation, all those
things. I wish I knew if I'm going to be out of a job in a couple of months'
time when I unsuccessfully compete against my co-workers, who I've gotten along
with so well and now we don't talk to each other because we're trying to protect
our own jobs.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Mr. Speaker, I think I
got a spark out of Members opposite over there now, and I guess they don't like
some of the things that I'm saying to them. But this is about encouraging women
in leadership. It's about providing an avenue and a means for that to take
place.
The
short 15 minutes I had to talk today is not near enough to talk about this
important issue, Mr. Speaker, because it is an important issue, and it's an
important discussion for us to have as parliamentarians. As this private
Member's resolution comes to a close in the next 15 minutes or so, I really hope
government continues to put a focus on ensuring that we have the best people
possible, and that women are afforded opportunities as much as anyone else, no
matter what part of the province they come from, no matter what their background
is, they should be given equal opportunities for leadership roles in government
as anyone else. And I certainly encourage them to seek public office as well
because they do bring great value to the work that we do as parliamentarians as
well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
And the Minister Responsible
for the Women's Policy Office, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely.
MS. C. BENNETT:
I'm proud to stand here today
in that capacity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
There have been a couple of
things in the debate this afternoon that I want to clarify for those listening
at home. And I understand that the Member who is going to close the PMR is going
to speak fairly quickly, or shortly, so I'm going to have to be very
expeditious.
To the
Member opposite for the District of Paradise, I would ask him why he has a very
competent woman in his caucus who he has not provided an opportunity for
leadership in his caucus, or his Cabinet, and why he hasn't seen fit to reward
her for her incredible work and the great work that she does in the District of
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, Mr. Speaker.
I do
want to talk a little bit about the work that we have done in the Independent
Appointments Commission. I'm proud to stand here today and say that as of the
recent numbers I have yesterday, Tier 1 entries, 32 per cent
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thirty-two per cent of those appointments are females; at the Tier 2 level, 48
per cent are females. And we are working very hard inside the Women's Policy
Office with all of our colleagues, and I would ask the Members opposite to
engage in this incredible opportunity for us to encourage every single
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, particularly women, to participate in the
Independent Appointments Commission.
Mr.
Speaker, Members opposite also alluded to the fact that they're questioning
whether or not there is gender lenses provided to public policy as part of this
government's activities. I can assure the Members opposite that there is an
active process that the Women's Policy Office is undertaking, including
training, ongoing training inside departments on gender analysis, ongoing
support for departments as they write legislation, ongoing analysis and detail
in every single piece of material that comes forward in recent months to make
sure that the gender lens is applied.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I want to speak specifically about the fact that we are here debating
that this House needs more female representation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
And let me say, Mr. Speaker,
that let us first look at our own houses and our first houses that we should be
looking at are the party systems that our particular parties operate in. And I
would challenge the two parties opposite to look at things like our party has
looked at: things like a strong women's commission that recruits candidates and
encourages training and mentorship for those candidates; funding programs for
those members who want to run in office and don't have the financial resources
to do it.
Because
the thing that's going to change in this House of Assembly is making sure that
when women who run and we know they win when they run get a chance to be
supported by their party, just like this party over here has done, Mr. Speaker.
With
that said, I'll happily turn over my time to my Member for Cartwright L'Anse
au Clair who I'm so proud to work with, particularly in light of the great work
she did last week on Daughters of the Vote. An incredible number of young women
across this province who passionately want to be in this House as passionately
as I do, as passionately as my female colleagues do, as passionately as every
feminist on this side and I would argue every feminist on that side wants to
be here so that we can make sure that the words and the important policy
discussions that are happening in this House happen in a way that represents 51
per cent of the population, and that the issues related to women are reflected
in the policy decisions we make in a way that's meaningful, responsible and
progressive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, to close debate.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
wonderful debate here this afternoon on a very important topic. Nice to hear
from a number of strong, capable women, women parliamentarians, but also
especially nice to hear from men.
Mr.
Speaker, sometimes when we talk about the barriers to women, it's really, really
sad, but I will confess because I have a reputation for telling the truth and
I'm honest to a fault sometimes my friends say. Sometimes the biggest barriers
to women are other women.
I want
to go back to a couple of things that the Member for St. John's Centre said
today around the PMR and not going far enough, and what we need, and talking
about we have a car but we don't have the motor and we don't have the gas. Well,
I know a lot of strong women who don't need the car at all because they can put
on snowshoes and they can blaze the trail and find the way, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
You know, we talk about women
needing to break through the glass ceiling, but, Mr. Speaker, one of the things
we need to break through, and it's sad that it's 2017 and we're still having
this conversation today, it's breaking through the barriers of attitude that
still exist.
I would
look to the Member for St. John's Centre and say it really, really immensely
saddened me, it saddened me as an individual here in the Legislature, a
parliamentarian, a position that I humbly hold since 2013, when I saw their
leader on February 1 tweet about the newly appointed Minister for Democratic
Institutions and say, in reference to the prime minister, he sent a rookie
woman. He sent a rookie women. And this is three weeks ago.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an important PMR that we're discussing here today, because this
is the kind of stuff that we're still dealing with. The stories from women
saying they elected a pretty face. This is the stuff that makes women dig their
heels in and say we will go out and we will show the men and the women of today
that women have the right and can be capable and competent at any single table
that we sit at.
The
concern around the proposed amendment to the PMR, the ruling which my colleague
brought down, referenced the Independent Appointments Commission and carving out
seats. I will just to speak to that for a moment, because when I've done a
little bit of research, under the Independent Appointments Commission, so far 22
individuals were appointed to eight different tiers, and 32 per cent of these
have been female.
They did
not get these positions because they were female, but they got the position
because they were the most entitled, the most qualified. And that's what I like
about this. If I decide to run for a position against my colleague here for Lake
Melville, I don't want a seat carved out for me; I'm going to beat them fair and
square. That's the way I look at this, Mr. Speaker, as a women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
There have also been 25
individuals appointed, to date, to Tier 2 entities, and 48 per cent of these
have been female. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're moving in the right
direction, and it all starts with conversations like we're having here today,
important debate in the Chamber.
I want
to thank the speakers today. The Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune
spoke very passionately. She's obviously I'm going to say something that's a
little bit political, and I told her this after the election. I said, I thought
about you and I admire you, because there was this red wave that went through
and I give credit too where credit is due. And sometimes your career can end
because of that. She's obviously doing something right; she's obviously getting
back to her constituents and showing up and she's a strong woman
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
and she has a lot of
challenges. She represents a district that's far away from the Legislature, and
I can relate to the challenges and balancing the work life and the family act,
and I commend her for that.
The
Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, who has her own interesting story to
tell, very interesting to listen to; she's worked, herself, in lots of
male-dominated areas and proven that she's capable and competent. And the Member
for St. Centre, who always brings lots of passion to the Legislature when she
speaks, Mr. Speaker, and an interesting career in film, and certainly nobody
here would dispute, a strong advocate for women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
And I appreciated her
comments here today.
Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege every day of sitting next to the youngest
parliamentarian ever elected in our Legislature, and it was nice to hear him get
on his feet today and talk about the influence of powerful, strong women in his
life no doubt, strong women that have helped play a role in getting him where
he is today.
The
Member for Topsail Paradise, I thank him for his confidence in me. I guess
what I would say to that, Mr. Speaker, is the way I was raised, you have a job
to do; you do it to the best of your ability. Everything happens for a reason;
we are where we are at the time. I will continue to get up every single day with
my first loyalty being to the people of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and then as
a team player, working with this great bunch that I work with. I thank the
Member for Topsail Paradise for his comments today and his accolades to the
strong women in his life.
And
lastly, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the Member for Windsor Lake and I can
tell you those of us who work close to her know that she hasn't had an easy ride
either. The last year, it's been a difficult one, but many times I've heard her
speak very passionately, wanting to help pave the way or make things a little
bit better for women.
I had
the privilege, just a couple of weeks ago, on behalf of the Minister for the
Status of Women, to travel to New Brunswick for the Atlantic caucus meeting and
to sit with Premier Gallant who holds the Status of Women portfolio, Minister
Biggar from PEI and Minister Bernard from Nova Scotia. I spent the day, Mr.
Speaker, and during that day as we talked about issues that are important to
women, and breaking down the barriers, and how do we reduce the violence against
women, that day, we released the Guide to
Gender Diversity in Employment.
That was
led by my colleague here. That was led by Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the
privilege of doing it, Mr. Speaker, but I was just representing the minister.
And I want to thank her for that. Because not only do we need more women in
legislatures, we need more women at all of the different tables. We need more
equal representation in the workplace, especially in the male-dominated areas,
Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to close by saying society benefits when women have a seat at government
and decision-making tables. Life impacts women differently and having their
experience heard creates better policies and wiser governments. Mr. Speaker, the
more women that we have in politics and in Chambers, the more young women have
role models to look up to.
I
believe that it all starts with all of us, doing our part to encourage young
women to pursue their dreams and aspirations and support them in whatever way we
can.
I'm
happy to be part of a Liberal government that, provincially and federally, have
elected more women to date than any other party, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
When I first got elected in
2013, I was actually the only female in the caucus at that time. I have to say,
I was treated with nothing but the utmost respect. I think that just goes to
show, we are breaking down the barriers every single day, Mr. Speaker. I look
forward to the day when there will be certainly more female colleagues in this
Legislature, at municipal tables, at provincial boards and out in the
male-dominated, non-traditional female jobs, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank everyone again for their participation in this private Member's motion
today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Do you want Division called?
MR. SPEAKER:
You need four more people, I
believe, to stand, if
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's what we were doing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Division
has been called.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion?
Division
has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Ms. Coady, Mr. Byrne, Mr.
Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr.
Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr.
Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr.
Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King, Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil,
Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 32; the nays: zero. The vote is unanimous.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The vote
has been registered as unanimous.
The
motion has passed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members'
Day, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.