March 4, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 50
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome the Members to this session and, as we begin today, I would like
to begin with a very important tradition of Parliament.
I do
have today the pleasant task of formally welcoming a new Member who was duly
elected in the by-election of January 24, 2019. The new Member is Mr. Paul Dinn,
representing the District of Topsail - Paradise. I've been advised by the Clerk
of the House that the Member has taken the Oath of Office and the Oath of
Allegiance to the Crown, as required by the Constitution, and has signed the
Members' Roll.
(The new
Member for Topsail - Paradise, along with the Leader of the Official Opposition,
enter the Chamber through the main doors, approach the Chair and bow to the
Speaker.)
(Applause.)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, may I introduce
Mr. Paul Dinn, the Member for Topsail - Paradise, who appears before you to
claim his rightful place in this House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Let the Member take his seat.
(The new
Member and the leader then approach the Chair and exchange greetings with the
Speaker. The new Member is escorted to his seat by the leader.)
(Applause.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege.
O'Brien
and Bosc, in the House of Commons
Procedure and Practice, states that a Member must satisfy the Speaker that
he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as
possible after becoming aware of the situation.
As
indicated through the email on Saturday, March 2, 2019, I asked for your
guidance on making a point of privilege. I've given you notice and a written
copy of the point of privilege this morning, March 4, 2019. Mr. Speaker, this is
new and very relevant information that was made public on Saturday, March 2,
2019. This is the earliest possible opportunity for me to bring this matter to
your attention.
Sources
within the Management Commission informed me that Chaulk did tell MHAs that
Joyce was unavailable for an interview. This was reported by
CBC News and they had the information
confirmed and that was actually said. This is critical to the investigation that
has been widely circulated on local, national and international media. Mr.
Speaker, as you are aware, there were harassment and bullying complaints made
against myself and the Member for Mount Scio. There was an investigation and
there was no basis to these allegations or complaints.
Mr.
Bruce Chaulk, Commission for Legislative Standards, in a CBC interview on May 3,
2018, made statements that were very serious and alarming. He stated: “'You
might say they can be fired,' Chaulk said, the grin returning to his face. 'I
have the ability to recommend that they can be fired.'” This was before any
complaint was ever received and expressed the gravity of a situation without
receiving a complaint.
The CBC
report says: “But a grin comes across his face as he talks about the power he
wields to hire any help he needs to get to the bottom of the issues unfolding in
Newfoundland and Labrador's House of Assembly.” He is quoted as saying: “I'm not
a harassment investigator, but I'll certainly have an experienced one to do the
work.” Mr. Chaulk informed the general public that he was not qualified to carry
out these investigations and he will be using outside help. The firm eventually
used was Rubin Thomlinson and, to date, this report has not been made public but
there was no foundation to their harassment and bullying complaints.
Mr.
Speaker, the reports were handed to you, my lawyer and myself on October 19,
2018. I received the final report. In it, it found that I had violated the Code
of Conduct Principle 10.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to make it very clear and unequivocal that I was never
interviewed by the firm Rubin Thomlinson or Mr. Bruce Chaulk. The rule of
natural justice, the right to be heard was not followed. In any court of law,
from a speeding ticket to first degree murder, the accused has the right to be
heard. The Supreme Court of Canada allows people to be heard in person.
Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to
outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that
the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality
and lack of bias, then procedural justice is enhanced. This is Leventhal, 1980.
Mr.
Speaker, I was never heard in the process, and the characteristics mentioned
above were not evident in either the report for myself or the Member for Mount
Scio.
In a
technical briefing with the Management Commission on October 24, 2018, Mr. Bruce
Chaulk made the following statement: I interviewed witnesses – he named a number
– and one refused to participate and wouldn't be interviewed. When asked who
that person was, it was stated it was Eddie Joyce.
Mr.
Speaker, may I remind you of your response to me on November 6, 2018 at 9:18
p.m. You stated: As the request refers to an in-camera technical briefing,
technical briefings of Members are not bound by confidentiality. I must remind
the House, on many occasions in the House of Assembly, ministers are asked
questions arising from a technical briefing, which is very common. Members can
speak openly and freely, and I expect you will inform them.
Mr.
Speaker, I received an email on Monday, October 29, 2018 from Mr. Chaulk
stating: You were not required to appear, nor was it expected. The act provides
that you can make representation in writing or in person, or by counsel or by
representative. Your counsel provided very extensive submissions. I will table
that document, Mr. Speaker.
If this
was the case, why would Bruce Chaulk state that I refused to participate in the
Management Commission October 24? On the following floor of the House of
Assembly I produced the letters from my lawyers which clearly showed that I
would have met. Your statement to me was: This is not what he said; you were
definitely willing to meet. I approached Bruce Chaulk immediately after showing
the letters and he stated: I will correct to the letter. Mr. Speaker, you were
present for that.
Mr.
Speaker, you were present and you confirmed that you heard that exchange. Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling the letters from my lawyers dated July 26, 2018 and August
1, 2018, and an email from Mr. Chaulk on August 1, 2018 at 8:32 a.m. The letter
on July 26 states: This is further to our telephone conversation of July 24 and
your office's request to interview our client on August 1, 2018. As I advise,
the undersigned is out of the office – that is the lawyer.
The
letter clearly indicated that Mr. Chaulk's office did request an interview with
me on August 1, 2018. This was the only date given and there was no alternate
dates provided or even asked if we could have an alternate date. Mr. Speaker,
August 1 was Regatta Day in St. John's and my lawyer could not be present, and
this was communicated to Mr. Chaulk. Without my lawyer being able to be present,
I agreed to meet with the investigator.
The
letter states: If, however, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, you feel
that any aspect of the request for the opinion has not been fully addressed or
requires further clarification or amplification, our client will agree to meet
with you and the investigator or to respond in writing, questions from the
investigator, within the time frame indicated. Please be advised that this was
against the advice of my lawyer that felt strongly that legal counsel should be
present at this interview.
Mr.
Speaker, with an ultimatum of August 1, 2018 only, and no other opportunity, I
wanted and was looking forward to presenting my side which never happened. On
August 1, 2018, my lawyer wrote Mr. Chaulk and has not received confirmation
from your office or any respect of the request for opinion has not been
addressed, or that further clarification or amplification is required, we
interpret your silence to mean that your office no longer considers it necessary
that our client meets with the investigator on Wednesday, August 1.
Mr.
Chaulk wrote back to Ms. Wells on 8:32 a.m. on August 1 and replied: Hi, Ms.
Wells, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, I wasn't expecting you or your
client.
Mr.
Speaker, the documentation provided clearly disputes Mr. Chaulk's statement to
the Management Commission that I refused to participate. This is clearly false,
baseless and without foundation or truth. This reckless statement shows the bias
towards myself and a predetermined decision without all the facts. This
credibility and ability to conduct his findings in both reports should be called
into question, and he stated publicly that he personally does not have the
expertise.
Mr.
Speaker, as I stated earlier, my lawyer was given one date, August 1, 2018, to
meet, the only day available and no compromise for another date. Without my
lawyer being present, Mr. Speaker, I agreed to meet with the investigator. No
meeting occurred that day and I needed and expected to give my version and list
of witnesses. Evidence will show that there were five later days of interviews –
five different dates and people made arrangements with Mr. Chaulk for dates that
could fit their schedule. Mr. Speaker, with such implications on my professional
life, personal life, family and friends, I should have been given the due
process and an opportunity to present evidence and provide witnesses.
Mr.
Speaker, I wrote you on November 6, 2018, advising that I had this statement
from Mr. Chaulk and asked you if it was necessary to have an emergency
Management Commission meeting to discuss the vital piece of damaging
information. This meeting never occurred. This document I will table. I will
also table the letters from my lawyer to prove that I was willing to meet.
If you
make a decision that this is a prima facie case, I'm asking that you refer the
Joyce report of October 19 and the Kirby report of October 6 back to the House
of Assembly. I want to make it quite clear, if you decide this is a prima facie
case and this is referred back to the House of Assembly, we'll be discussing the
process. Not the merit of what's in the reports but the process alone, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, O'Brien and Bosc states: “It is impossible to codify all incidents
which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation
or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases … However, some matters
found to be prima facie include” – this is very important, Mr. Speaker – “the
damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of
Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before
committees, and the provision of misleading information.”
O'Brien
and Bosc quote Maingot is stating: “The purpose of raising matters of
'privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and
credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to
uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its
Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be
reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised
in the House of Commons.”
I refer
to O'Brien and Bosc page 141 where matters involving privilege before the House
of Commons are treated with the utmost seriousness. As you outlined this week,
there is a formal process to be followed. I have followed that process and
notified the Speaker of my intentions to raise the issue of privilege and this
is the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr.
Speaker, for the record, I would like to table the letters from my lawyer, and
also the letter that I sent you on November 6 because it was before the House of
Assembly had their vote. I wanted to make sure – which the Members weren't aware
– that I was refused the opportunity. The statements made by Mr. Chaulk were
that I refused to participate; these legal letters will prove that's just
absolutely false.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Are
there other Members who wish to speak to this matter?
Seeing
none, I will take the request to consider this point of privilege under
advisement and I'll be reporting back to this House of Assembly.
Thank
you.
I will
now return to our routine proceedings.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte -
Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
Placentia West - Bellevue, and Windsor Lake.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He's sick. He's not here.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry.
MR. KING:
(Inaudible) he notified me
just before (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you.
The
House was not notified.
Okay,
thank you. I will continue, then.
The
Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
welcome back.
Thank
you for the opportunity to rise in this hon. House and highlight exciting things
happening in my District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
The good
folks of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and Indian Bay, along with their mascot,
Willie Melt, just celebrated the most successful 26th annual winter festival.
The week
started with a huge crowd attending the opening ceremony where fun and laughter
filled the room. Their sense of community pride is alive and well. There was
song and dance, mummers and feasts, events starting early in the morning and
others ending late in the evening.
Each and
every event was sold out days in advance. The number of volunteers that were
dedicated to this event was outstanding. I had the opportunity to attend many of
the events, to be made fun off and to make fun.
My mere
words cannot express the magnitude of success of this annual event. You have to
experience it and its people to get the true picture.
I would
like to thank the host committee and amazing volunteers from
Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and Indian Bay for another successful winter event.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
today to acknowledge an organization in my district that, in less than two years
of existence, has had a major impact on both outlining the many noted attractive
amenities the community of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's offers, along with
modernizing the business community into a professional, inclusive and focused
entity.
I speak
of the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's Chamber of Commerce. In only a short period of
time they have developed a membership of over 60 businesses and organizations
who see the value of working together to enhance our community socially and
economically. These businesses and organizations range from farming to
manufacturing and everything in between.
Their focus to engage not only the business community,
but all residents through round-table discussions and presentations by expert in
many fields, shows the true meaning of how business is an equal partner in the
community. Their focus on developing a tourism strategic plan that not only
includes the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's area but many adjacent communities is
another example of how they show a true desire to ensure as many as possible in
the region benefit from their work.
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the support
from the officials and councillors from the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's,
along with the officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation who have all worked with the Chamber these past number of months to
achieve their goals.
A special thank you to the Chamber's board of directors
and its president, Mr. Mike Murray, for showing true leadership and commitment
to the community.
I ask all Members in this House to join me in wishing
the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's Chamber of Commerce best wishes in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the passing of a pioneer of the fishery, a man
of unparalleled passion who has been rightly hailed as a visionary in his field:
Mr. Bruce Wareham.
On January 4, Bruce's battle with cancer came to an end
but his legacy lives on in Arnold's Cove and beyond.
In the words of his own family – and I quote:
“While his career brought him to many countries around
the world, his greatest commitment remained to the town, plant and people of
Arnold's Cove. Bruce often modestly attributed the success he experienced in
life to the people of Arnold's Cove. This commitment was the driving force
behind Bruce's decision in 2004, at the age of 61, to form the Icewater Group of
Companies. Bruce's hard work, determination and vision not only kept a
groundfish processing plant open in Arnold's Cove, but built it into a
successful operation with a worldwide reputation for quality. Bruce remained
passionate and optimistic about the future of the fishing industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador until his passing and will be remembered as a man of
his word and a true gentleman.”
Mr. Speaker, I can say no more or no better than those
who loved and cherished him most.
I ask all hon. Members of this hon. House to join me in
extending our condolences to his wife, Hilda, of 50 years, his sons, Alberto and
Ken, and all members of their family on their personal loss.
On behalf of the people of Arnold's Cove I say thank
you, Bruce, and Godspeed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to
recognize the outstanding work and community service of Windsor Lake resident,
Dr. Lloydetta Quaicoe
I was honoured to
be in attendance at Government House in January to witness Dr. Quaicoe receive
the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador for her many cultural contributions in
our province.
A human rights
champion, Dr. Quaicoe was founder and CEO of Sharing Our Cultures, an
organization that works to address the needs of migrant
children and fosters
intercultural connections. Dr. Quaicoe's work beyond the organization includes
work with the African Canadian Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the
Multicultural Women's Organization.
In 2013,
she was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal for promoting
multicultural and intercultural relations.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Dr. Lloydetta
Quaicoe on receiving the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and for her
significant cultural contributions and community service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight our government's recent
announcement of the expansion to the Fire Protection Vehicle Program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
We have made changes to the
program so that it works better for communities, fire departments and the
residents they serve.
We have
expanded the program to allow communities to apply for cost-shared funding under
one of three funding streams, depending on which stream best suits their
financial needs. Communities can now apply for cost-shared funding for used fire
protection vehicles, as well as for a fixed contribution for new vehicles.
The
program has been improved so that our fire protection budget will make a bigger
impact in more areas of the province. The changes will also provide increased
opportunity for communities to collaborate and take a shared approach to fire
services.
I would
like to thank all the firefighters, their families and fire departments in this
province for their dedication and sacrifices. I would also like to acknowledge
the good work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services. We
look forward to continuing to work with our fire services partners to strengthen
the level of fire and emergency services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's good to see
this program has expanded to include more options for communities to access
funds for new and used fire protection equipment. We all recognize the
importance of strong fire protection, and I certainly hope that this will allow
more communities to improve their services.
Firefighters play an important role in our community, protecting the public and
responding to emergencies. I hope these increased resources will help them in
their very important and, often, difficult job.
I would
also like to commend all fire departments across the province. I know many are
volunteer and I thank all firefighters for everything they do to protect our
communities.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted to join
with him in recognizing the volunteers who work in firefighting. Anything that
helps communities and volunteers who struggle with the cost of firefighting is
good to see.
It's
interesting, though; this statement does not include any details on what the
cost-sharing ratios will be for participating communities. No community who
needs the financial assistance to obtain appropriate firefighting equipment
should be denied it because they cannot afford it. Volunteer firefighters in
small communities provide an invaluable service and government must ensure that
they get the equipment they need.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, March 3-9 is Education Week in Newfoundland and Labrador, with opening
ceremonies held this morning at Memorial Academy in Botwood.
The
theme this year is “Go the Extra Mile.” For students, going the extra mile shows
that they are working hard and doing their best to succeed. The theme also
speaks to teachers, who go above and beyond to help our students achieve.
As a
government, we understand the importance of a quality education for our students
and the role that it plays in the future growth and continued prosperity of our
province.
Through
the Education Action Plan, we are implementing over 82 actions, including hiring
350 teacher resources over the next three years so that our children and our
youth have access to the supports that they need.
On
behalf of the provincial government, thank you to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Teachers' Association, to teachers, to school districts and school councils for
their hard work, professionalism and dedication to the youth and education in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
encourage all students to take part in the many activities that will be
happening during Education Week. You all have much to contribute and can learn
and grow from your involvement in this very special week.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in celebrating Education Week. The
opportunity for education never ends.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to join the minister in recognizing the start of Education Week here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Education Week is about celebrating learning in our
communities. This year's theme is Go the Extra Mile. And I'm happy to say, Mr.
Speaker, that the people in our education system are world class. Our students,
teachers, parents, volunteers and staff are the ones that make this a reality by
going the extra mile every day.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I wish everyone involved in the K-12
education in our province a fun-filled week of activities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for a copy of his statement. I commend and thank the teachers
who work so hard and face challenges to reaching every student and making sure
they have a good educational experience. They are all going the extra mile.
I would
like to see government go the extra mile as well and reduce the class-size caps
and ensure that teachers have the resources they need to provide for a good
teaching and learning environment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would
the Premier agree that at stake in the 2005 Atlantic Accord fiscal arrangement
review are hundreds of millions of dollars to this province on an annual basis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the review of
the Atlantic Accord, based on the amended agreement that was put in place in
2005, outlines five principles of what a review would look like. Mr. Speaker,
right now it really goes back, when you look at the history of the Accord, it
really started in the early '80s. It was finalized around 1986 and we had an
amendment that was made in 2005.
So what
we're currently undergoing now is a review. But I will assure you, Mr. Speaker,
we will make sure that the principal beneficiary of the Atlantic Accord will be
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
These are the people that
will get the full benefit of this review by the Atlantic Accord.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I'm gratified to hear the
Premier endorse the principal beneficiary right.
This is
actually being conducted pursuant to section 8 of the 2005 Atlantic Accord
fiscal arrangement which states that, “No later than March 31, 2019, the parties
agree to review the current arrangement.”
The
Premier could have commenced the review of the current arrangement in 2015 when
he took office. Why did he wait until last year to commence the review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we started the
review by sending a letter to the prime minister last February. We made the
commitment and the prime minister has made the commitment that this review would
be finalized by March.
You
could pick any point in time – I would say to your party, you had every
opportunity to do the same thing. As a matter of fact, you had every opportunity
not to take away Muskrat Falls from the Public Utilities Board but your party
decided not to do that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
So you can pick any point in
time, Mr. Speaker, we are having meaningful negotiations with the federal
government. I can assure you we will stand up for the people of this province.
We will not play politics, which is exactly what you are doing, trying to create
a diversion from a plan you do not have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, you and I could
perhaps agree that part of the respectful workplace training that we just
enjoyed is that when a colleague asks a question, the answer is responsive and
not irrelevant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Former Premier Brian
Peckford, one of the fathers of the Atlantic Accord, has released an open letter
containing his thoughts on the review.
He asks:
“Has the provincial government made public its position on this review?”
And I
ask the Premier: What is the need for secrecy and what is his response to this
father of the Accord?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we released the
letter based on the five principles and the amended agreement that was signed in
2005. That letter was released. The Leader of the Opposition should, if he
hasn't, take an opportunity to read that. That really outlines the framework of
the discussions that we're having right now.
I will
tell you, we will leave no stone unturned, Mr. Speaker, in finding benefits for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to because this province has been left
in an unprecedented mess by the party that the Leader of the Opposition leads.
We will
leave no stone unturned in those negotiations to find money, to find revenue and
ideas to solve the problems that we've been left with by your party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, in light of that
determination to find every available benefit, the Premier should not mind
enlightening the House as to which years are under review with the purpose of
establishing the allocation of benefit from the offshore, and therefore the
fiscal payments to Newfoundland and Labrador that may be required to obtain our
right as principal beneficiary.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there's an
ongoing process, as I've just mentioned.
I find
it ironic when the Leader of the Opposition stands up here and talks about
transparency, talks about accountability. Yet it's the Leader of the Opposition
that is out there making these statements publicly in our province right now and
he fails to tell the people of this province.
He says
there will be no – he would have balanced budgets. That would mean right now, in
this year – this fiscal year – the Leader of the Opposition would need to come
up with almost $600 million.
I say if
you want to be truly transparent, a man of your word, why don't you tell the
people what it is you're going to cut in health care and education?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of
respectful interaction between colleagues, I'll simply remind the Premier that I
did ask what years are under review.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we
are leaving no stone unturned when you look at the opportunities within the
Atlantic Accord to find benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
This is
not to a date; this is about the principles that are outlined during a
negotiation. I think the people of this province – I can give you an example
around legislation that could have an impact on our offshore, Mr. Speaker. When
you think of the statements that I made just last week in front of the Senate,
these are examples of what I am doing to improve revenue for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, making sure that we get full value of our offshore resources.
We are
working hard to make sure that we are the principal beneficiary. You can call it
the primary beneficiary, call it what you want, our objective is to bring
benefits – more benefits to Newfoundlanders and –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I don't doubt the hon.
Premier's good intentions, but it's clear at this point that he either is
incapable or unwilling to tell the House what years are under review.
Let me
ask: What mechanism will be built in to ensure that we maintain our principal
beneficiary status as 100 per cent beneficiary of offshore resources in future
years?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, what the Leader
of the Opposition is referring to – what he's really referring to – is the
mistakes by the PC Party when this was negotiated in the beginning. If he had
done the job at the beginning we would not be identifying the very things that
the Leader of the Opposition is identifying right now.
The
Leader of the Opposition knows quite clearly that there was no formula attached
to the 1986 Accord that was signed by previous federal and provincial PC
Parties. He knows there's no formula there. What we have to do now is look at
the benefits that we see are rightfully ours as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. That is the history of the Accord. There is no
formula attached to this.
Mr.
Speaker, I am telling you right now – and I'll make it quite clear one more time
– we will leave no stone unturned looking for benefits for this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, it appears that the opposite side is not able to tell us what is the
period during which the review is being conducted, which years.
Mr.
Speaker, section 8 of the Accord fiscal arrangement – inserted by Premier
Williams by the way – does not state that the parties must complete their review
by March 31. Many would agree that the review should proceed until the province
has fully obtained its rights under the Accord.
Why the
artificial deadline of March 31 to complete the review?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there are a
couple things I want to make reference to. Number one, in the previous question
the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the incompetence. I will tell you, Mr.
Speaker, people in this province have been watching quite clearly the
incompetence of your party and we just call it: Daily coverage of the Muskrat
Falls Inquiry. Which you, the Leader of the Opposition, still sits in his chair
and laughs at me while I'm talking about doubling electricity rates in this
province.
I take
exception when the Leader of the Opposition smiles and grins at me when I make
those comments. This is serious stuff we're dealing with here, the future of
this province, Mr. Speaker.
What I
say right now – as I said – we were looking for whatever options we have
available to us within the Accord right now, looking for every revenue
opportunity that we can have. Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is no formula in
place in any of those accords, including the amendment that the Leader of the
Opposition has just mentioned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I can only say I don't know how it comports with a respectful workplace for the
minister or the Premier being questioned to go on the attack with irrelevancies
against the questioner.
Is the
Premier concerned that the constitutional crisis, which has engulfed Prime
Minister Trudeau as a result of allegations he interfered with the criminal law
independence of the Attorney General for Canada, will delay the March 31
deadline?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Former Premier Peckford states in his open letter that there should be no
trade-offs for other things.
Will the
Premier commit that these negotiations will not be influenced by any other files
or demands?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I'd
like for, as a matter of comment to be, when you look at clarification and so
on, right now I have not spoken to former Premier Peckford that he's mentioning
right now. I'm not so sure about the conversation the Leader of the Opposition
would have had, although there are many people in our province right now that
were some of the early architects.
As I
said, the architecture of the Accord really goes back to around 1981, in some of
the early days the drafts and iterations that went, that was back and forth.
I've talked to a number of people that would have been involved in this.
Mr.
Speaker, the Accord is an important document for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. I can assure you that based on the five principles that we are
negotiating and having discussions right now, we fully intend to have this
review completed – a successful review completed by March 31.
Mr.
Speaker, it is my thinking that what would be a successful review for us would
not be a good day for the Leader of the Opposition because he seems clearly more
about (inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm clearly
about getting answers that the people of the province are seeking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Former PC Premier Peckford
also asked in his open letter whether “the provincial government sought advice
from any of those who were involved in the successful negotiations that led to
the Accord.”
Has the
Premier reached out to those involved in these successful negotiations? If not,
why not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have a number
of people that work within government. A number of groups of people would have
been in our JPS, our Justice and Public Safety division, Mr. Speaker. We have a
lot of people right now who are involved in the review of the Atlantic Accord.
Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to getting answers. Isn't
it ironic today that we had to do an inquiry to get the truth and to get answers
from the Muskrat Falls Project? Isn't it ironic that you have the gall to stand
up here today and talk about getting answers?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
We will put the information
from the Atlantic Accord, once the review is finished, on or before March 31,
Mr. Speaker. We're hoping for a successful completion of this review to bring
benefits for our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I take it the answer is, no,
he has not reached out.
Who is
on your negotiating team, Mr. Premier, including outside experts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the negotiating
team right now primarily consists of people inside of government: people within
the Department of Finance, people within the Department of Natural Resources and
people within the Justice and Public Safety Department. I will assure you
there's a strong group of officials right now. They have a network of people
that are negotiating on behalf of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll tell you this: We're not relying on some outside agency to conduct
those negotiations with us because we've learned a lesson from that. We've
learned a lesson. The bureaucrats and the officials within government are
directly involved. We are not leaving this to CEOs of an agency, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
I think Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have learned a lesson from that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd like to remind all
Members that this is still the same Speaker that was here in December. I still
will not tolerate interruptions – warning.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
When PC Premier Danny
Williams entered negotiations with Ottawa, he had the benefit of the findings of
the 2003 report of the Royal Commission on our place in Confederation;
specifically, that 80 per cent of the benefits were going to the federal
government and only 20 per cent to us.
What
analysis as to the distribution of offshore benefits did the Premier have
conducted before he started these review negotiations? Who authored it and what
did it conclude?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a
complete analysis that's been done on a number of options that would be
available to get to those numbers. The 2003 submissions – I'm guessing the
Leader of the Opposition would have read them because I know I've certainly read
them. Based on the press release that he did last week about primary versus
principal, if you go back and read the 2003 submission – some of which was done
by your own father – used the word, by the way, “primary”; did not use in every
single incidence the word “principal.”
Mr.
Speaker, right now this is a bit of a math exercise, there's no question about
it, when you look at the benefits, and trying to find where the principal
beneficiary would be. I can tell you there's a very fulsome analysis that is
being done for that negotiating table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Years
ago, The Way Forward document
committed to hosting a women's leadership conference. Last week, many amazing
female leaders were disappointed with how this conference was delivered.
I ask
the Premier: Is this the standard he expects in delivering on his
Way Forward commitments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker,
The Way Forward, which is the vision for the growth and
sustainability of Newfoundland and Labrador, is having a significant impact. We
know now that in 2019-2020 Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the growth in GDP
for all of Canada; we're seeing jobs created in our province.
To the
question of the women's leadership conference, Mr. Speaker, no other government
in the history of this province – no other government in this history of this
province – no other government in Canada has set aside a department for the
Status of Women. That is our commitment to women's leadership.
Even
with our boards and agencies just last year we are seeing progress – significant
progress – in the number of women that are in leadership roles on our boards,
agencies and commissions, Mr. Speaker. That will continue under the leadership
of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I ask the minister: With
almost 350 attending, did you reach out to any of our province's esteemed female
leaders and ask them to facilitate the networking session? If so, how many did
you try to contact?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
thank the hon. Member for her question.
Mr.
Speaker, yes, we hosted a leadership conference last week, attended by more than
350 people from all diverse backgrounds.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
It was a great day, Mr.
Speaker.
The
conference was a tremendous opportunity that allowed a range of opinions and
thoughts to be shared, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that there were issues with
the networking session and I apologize for that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Did you reach out to any
status of women councils, advisory councils on the status of women, or other
women's groups to ask them for suggestions on speakers or presenters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this was not an exclusive event. As you can see, we had 12 female
speakers that day at the conference. An invitation was extended to extensive
community groups. The room was filled to capacity and it was on a first-come,
first-serve basis, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whose
decision was it to use the Dale Carnegie networking program and who selected the
facilitator?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the hon. Member for her question.
As I
said – I will reiterate – I acknowledge there were issues with the networking
session, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that. We will take that feedback into
consideration as we move forward with new sessions.
There
were lots of positives that came out of this conference, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Was the facilitator for this
keynote suggested by the Premier's office?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't
suggested by the Premier's office – not at all. What I looked at – I did attend
that conference and brought some opening remarks.
As the
minister just mentioned, it wasn't a perfect day, but I will tell you that when
you look at where we are in our province today, when you look at the key focus
areas around violence, gender-based violence and prevention of gender-based
violence, when you look at a gender analysis, from step one of the things that
we do within government, Mr. Speaker, advancing women in leadership roles, these
are areas that never existed within any government within our province.
And I
just remind the Member opposite, her government, when she sat in government, did
not go as far as this government is going today, and this is just the beginning
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, why did you only invite the female Members of the Liberal caucus and
exclude all other female leaders in the House of Assembly from this conference?
Was this intentional or was it a mistake?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the hon. Member for her question. This was not an exclusive event. The
invitation was provided to an extensive list of contacts in the community,
asking them to distribute to their network. I'm surprised that the Member
opposite, given the network that she has, wasn't reached out by the network that
we sent the invitations to.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I didn't get a clear answer
on that at all, but certainly I feel that myself and the other female leaders in
this House, it was very unfortunate that we found out about it after the fiasco
of the speaker hit the news.
Moving
on now to another topic, and that is that of busing, 1.6-kilometre busing. On
two occasions, we brought forward private Members' resolutions to eliminate
1.6-kilometre busing restrictions. The Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women voted both times to water down those resolutions, leaving students without
that coverage that we were asking in our resolution.
On
August 17, 2018, in a letter to the Education Minister, she describes the
1.6-kilometre busing as a regressive move where safety is compromised.
I ask
the minister: If this was such a safety concern for the children of your
district and across the province, why didn't you vote in favour of our
resolution to eliminate this regressive policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly my pleasure to speak on this 1.6 kilometre because we have made a
significant difference in the 1.6, contrary to what was done in the last 12
years when they were in office when nothing was done.
Since
September of this year, we have done 166 different routes; we have 72 courtesy
stops in place. We are continuing to work on that and where certainly safety is
always number one – you have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that safety is important
to us, even outside the 1.6 kilometres.
So we
are addressing that. We are addressing the courtesy stops that we have put in
place. We have made changes contrary to what was done before when nothing was
done for safety of busing.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Acknowledging that the 1.6-kilometre busing policy compromises safety for
children across this province, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women and Member for Burin - Grand Bank, do you support elimination of this
regressive policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I really
want to say a thank you to the Member opposite for the real concern that they
have now in 2019 with regard to safety of children on busing. Because, as I said
before and stated, there was simply nothing done – nothing done – with regard to
busing.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they had Deloitte do a study in 2013 and guess what
they left out of it. They left out the 1.6 kilometre. They didn't even address
it. So, Mr. Speaker, when you get over there, it is somewhat disingenuous for
them to speak the way they are speaking with regard to something that's very,
very important.
Mr.
Speaker, we're continuing to work on that and we're continuing to make sure that
safety is important to all of us. We will continue to ensure that we have safety
as the number one priority for all of us within the school system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland for a quick question, please.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, since the Atlantic Accord was last amended, the federal government has
signed on to the UN Law of the Sea, which requires a royalty from 1 to 7 per
cent for oil production in areas like Bay du Nord basin.
I ask
the Premier: Has the prime minister promised that the federal government will
pick up these royalties and not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have taken
the position as a province that when you sign on to UNCLOS, that the Member is
just mentioning there right now, that is the responsibility of the federal
government. So there's no need in our role to have that discussion because our
view is that's a responsibility of the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and
the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women held what they called a women's
leadership conference, inviting women from around the province for five hours of
passive listening; no scheduled time for questions or even to discuss the
important issues affecting women. Instead, he had a man speak for 1½ hours about
being nice and to smile and to pray.
Women
were rightfully frustrated and angry. This was not a conference on women's
leadership but a hastily organized PR event for the Premier and the new
minister.
I ask
the Premier –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier why did he invite all these women leaders and change makers from around
the province but leave absolutely no time to hear from them and for meaningful
work.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, this is the
beginning of what will be change in women's leadership in our province. It
started off on Wednesday of last week. There have been three key focus areas
that have been identified.
Mr.
Speaker, to suggest that Lorraine Mitchelmore, a women leader from Newfoundland
and Labrador who's left a mark across North America, to suggest that her
comments were not important, I find that a little hard to take.
I find
it very hard to take that a panel of five female women leaders across our
province sat on a panel for nearly an hour that was facilitated by a well-known
women from St. John's, I find that was not irrelevant today. It was very
relevant on the day that occurred, which was last Wednesday,
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, women were
invited on short notice and no travel assistance was given to women from outside
St. John's. He knows how desperate women's organizations are for funding for
their life-saving work. He invited his Liberal colleagues but not myself nor
women colleagues in Opposition.
I ask
the Premier: How much of taxpayers' money did he spend on his personal, partisan
PR event?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, politics at its worst.
I would
say that from the Status of Women and what we've had on last Wednesday, although
the day was not perfect, and that's been acknowledged, as we said, there was a
lot of progress that has been made.
To the
women leaders that exist outside – they're playing key roles outside of St.
John's. The minister has already made a commitment that she will be travelling
this province, holding sessions in communities around Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is
the first time in the history of this province we're seeing such a focus on
women and women in leadership and issues that face women in our society, Mr.
Speaker. It's the first time that we've seen that in the history of this
province, and we're going to continue to put a larger focus.
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.
One of
the promises made by the Premier and by the minister last week at this
conference was that this government was going to do a gender-based analysis of
everything that happens in government.
I've
been sitting here, along with my colleague, listening to that promise, both from
the former government and from this government now for a number of years. I want
the concrete proof that they do gender-based analysis, not that they're going to
do it, because the budgets that they've brought in do not show a concern for
women.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
that is one of the three areas that we've made a commitment from the department
of the Status of Women to focus on. The gender-based analysis is now from step
one, but the funding will be put in place, first of all, to put the training in
place for decision-makers within government. These are the people that are
putting budgets together, these are the people that are putting training
together and these are the people that review legislation within our province.
So, Mr.
Speaker, for the first time, you're going to see it occur from step one. That is
what these training allowances will be all about it, and it's one of the three
focus areas that I've just mentioned coming out of last Wednesday's conference.
The other one was about prevention of gender-based violence, Mr. Speaker, and
making sure that we have more women in leadership roles within our province.
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 find
it very interesting, what the Premier has just said. We have in this House had
Members of his Cabinet tell us that gender-based analysis was done, that it was
the tool that was put together by Status of Women Canada, and it was used
throughout his government.
Is he
now saying there was no training and people didn't know what they were doing
about gender-based analysis?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
What we're saying, Mr.
Speaker, we were not satisfied with the level that was done, so now we're going
to do it from step one. Isn't that better? Aren't we in a better position now
beginning that at step one?
I say to
the former leader of the Third Party, do you use those analyses within your own
party? Do you use that within your own party, Mr. Speaker? Because I got to tell
you, as a government, from step one, the training will begin and we will be
using that when it comes to legislation, when it comes to budgeting and so on.
Mr.
Speaker, we acknowledge by putting this in a key focus area last Wednesday that
we were not satisfied, and that is a reason why we're improving the analysis
based on the focus area that we put in place last Wednesday.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions are over.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling
one order-in-council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the fiscal year
2019-2020.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
here for tabling a report of the Standing Orders Committee dated March 4, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
as Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi to give notice of the following
motion:
WHEREAS
the PUB has confirmed when Muskrat Falls power comes online in 2021, electricity
rates will double to 23 cents a kilowatt hour but, alternatively, keeping
current rates, will create an estimated annual budget shortfall of $744 million,
restricting government's ability to provide the public services people rely on;
and
WHEREAS
the Muskrat Falls Inquiry is revealing that past and present governments made
disastrous decisions leading to this financial crisis; and
WHEREAS
government efforts have not resulted in practical solutions, other than to
direct the PUB to exam rate mitigation options; and
WHEREAS
the PUB can only address part of what needs to be done and experts have advised
government of the work it must do immediately; and
WHEREAS
the people of the province have lost confidence in government's ability to solve
this crucial and complex problem and need and want all Members of the House of
Assembly to work together;
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to immediately strike an
all-party select committee to work in an open, transparent and collaborative
manner on behalf of the people to identify all possible solutions for rate
mitigation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– and the future of Muskrat
Falls.
And,
this motion was seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, I add that this private Member's resolution will be presented on
Wednesday, March 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of
certain loans made under The
Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 53.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. OSBORNE:
Further, I give notice that I
will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Bodies
Reporting Act, Bill 50.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Historic
Resources Act, Bill 49.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 48.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
MR. DAVIS:
And I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance, Bill 52.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Now, I
think the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
Save the best for last.
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Forestry Act; otherwise, it will be known as Bill 51.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Remove Anomalies
And Errors In The Statue Law, Bill 54.
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move the following motion that
the amendment to Standing Order 92, which was adopted provisionally on February
27, 2018, be adopted permanently with sub-order 92(2) amended by the
substitution of 60 seconds for 90-second speaking time, and that this change
come into force on the date of its approval.
The
permanent Standing Order will read as follows: (1) Standing Order 92 is amended
by renumbering it as Standing Order 92(1) and by adding immediately after that
the following: (2) a minister, in his or her discretion, may reply to a petition
and the minister's response shall occupy no more than 60 seconds in so doing;
(3) a minister's response under Standing Order 92(2) may be given on the day
that the petition is presented or the next sitting day only; and (4) where in a
session multiple petitions of the same subject matter are presented, a minister
may respond to each petition in the manner contemplated under Standing Order
92(3), but only one response to petition with the same subject matter may be
made on each sitting day.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I present this petition:
WHEREAS
the successful proponents to the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to
be announced this spring, with construction anticipated to begin this fall, and
that is estimated to be a four-year construction period and there are
experienced local tradespeople and Labradorians in the area;
THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
To urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that are
awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourers at no cost to the taxpayers so that they can work in their own area,
support their local economy and be able to return home to their families every
evening.
Mr.
Speaker, we know last year that a lot of local people were looking for work in
the Corner Brook area and very few got work. So what I'm urging the government –
I'm sure the Member for Corner Brook is agreeing with me that a lot of local
people, where possible, would like to work on this hospital. We're encouraging
the government that, where possible, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, that
they hire local people.
Last
year, Mr. Speaker, I was involved with trying to get a few things set up for
local people. I know the iron workers were so much involved – they had
negotiations with the company – they were even willing to put in $100,000 of
their own money to ensure that there's no extra cost. That's how desperate the
local workers are for work.
I
encourage government when you're doing your evaluation and the estimates of the
cost, ensure wherever it's possible for local workers because it would be great
for four years to have local people, instead of have to go away, be able to stay
in their own home. Four years is a long time for a lot of tradespeople, a lot of
labourers, a lot of different skilled people.
I'm from
the understanding – and I spoke to a couple of unions – that there are enough
people on the West Coast – Corner Brook, Stephenville, the whole Bay St. George
area, out past Deer Lake and other places – that we can get that work done with
local people at no extra cost to the taxpayers, as it would cost if you brought
someone in.
So we're
just asking and encouraging government to try to keep that in mind and
encourage, where possible, to get local people hired on because it will benefit
the whole region. We're always talking about a major project that helped the
local people. Here's one over $600 million, $700 million.
I ask
government to keep that in mind when they're speaking for the companies and when
they're determining who's going to get the contract.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works for a 60-second response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. We have been very aggressive in this matter
and this issue. Just last fall, we hosted a business session in Corner Brook
where we invited in the two proponents who have been selected to bid on building
the hospital. We brought in as many local contractors as we could, in
consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association, to
make sure that our contractors see the opportunities that this long-term care
facility is going to bring, along with other facilities – sorry, the acute-care
hospital.
We also
have the new long-term care facilities in Central Newfoundland that we're going
to be announcing the successful proponent in the following weeks.
And, Mr.
Speaker, it is timely. I did have the opportunity this morning to meet with
TradesNL and that was the agenda for our meeting, is ways to make sure that
Newfoundland and Labrador companies can be a big part of the construction of the
new acute-care facility in Corner Brook and other facilities that we're
constructing in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS
women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many
food items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage
as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've been standing up in this House, almost daily, for the last few
months that the House has been open speaking to this minimum wage petition. Here
we hear the Premier talk about how they're using gender-based analyses and tools
to look at any budget item as it affects women and any law, any legislation, any
policy as to how it affects women.
This is
one of the key issues of lifting women out of poverty, because we know that the
majority of minimum wage earners are women and we know that one of the key
factors in women escaping abusive situations is poverty. We also know one of the
key factors for children to thrive and to do well in school is poverty and the
majority of children who are headed by single-parent moms who are making minimum
wage are living in poverty.
This is
a basis human rights issues, it's a basic justice issue and if this government
is committed to what they're saying, they would do something about improving
minimum wage. Yes, there was a 15-cent increase – a 15-cent increase – but the
problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that the base rate of minimum wage right
now, at the rate that it's being increased, according to the policies of this
government, it will be years down the road – years, more than a decade before it
reaches minimum of $15 an hour. This is a matter of social justice. It's also a
matter of equality. It's a matter about safety for women and children.
Mr.
Speaker, to not do otherwise is short-sighted and does not speak to the
commitment that this government proposes that they have to the status of women
in this province.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much to the hon. Member for bringing forward this petition.
We, as a
government, opened up this process. We had extensive public consultations to
find a balanced approach that balances both the needs of the employee and the
needs of the employer. We've tied it to a harmonized strategy within the
Atlantic provinces to harmonize minimum wage increases to April 1, which we've
done.
We've
recently announced the minimum wage will be going up by 25 cents to $11.40 per
hour, which makes it balanced across the Atlantic provinces, within reason.
We're looking at this option. There was a two-year period which would happen.
Once that two-year period is up, which it is now, we're going to start a review
of the process again and that's what our office is looking at right now.
I thank
the hon. Member for bringing forward the petition and we will take it under
advisement.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
government now requires regional health authorities to strictly enforce a policy
that requires all applicants being assessed to have a physical care need to
qualify for admission to a personal care home. Seniors with issues such as
anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no longer eligible. Many
seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now being denied access.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had a conversation here over the last number of years about
improving our health care system here, but also particularly around mental
health. What we're talking about here is a very vulnerable sector of our
society. We're talking about their personal health, but we're particularly
talking about mental health as it covers over with physical health. When we're
talking about seniors, because of no control in their circumstances, have had to
change their needs – and their needs sometimes, basically, are based on the fact
one of the spouses has passed away, or needs another type of special care. And
they now need to have better access to supports that would endeavour them to
have a different quality of life, but as equal as they should be entitled to.
We have
a responsibility here. To deny something that was taken for granted because it
worked, it served a purpose, it kept families united because they knew the
stresses were off them, that their mom or their dad or their aunt or their uncle
or their grandparents were taken care of by professionals in personal care
homes, that they knew there was a quality of life, there was a social component,
and that the anxiety by that individual and the family members would be
eliminated because they knew there were supports and programs and services put
in play.
It
appears that the government fixed something that was never broken. If it was
about a financial dollar costing, then that should have been discussed with the
general public and talked about the need to find a more efficient way to do it.
An efficient way of denying people a service that they expect because it's
valuable to their quality of life is an injustice to those people. We have
professionals out there who have modified the programs they offer in their
personal care homes, professionals who've gone out of their way to counsel with
the family members to find the most inclusive way to have the family united in
those type of personal care homes and offer programs that engage, in some cases,
seniors who've never been socially as active as they have been in their twilight
years.
Yet,
we've denied that because we say you have to have a physical ailment that's
diagnosed when we know health is a holistic approach here. And mental health not
dealt with or not supported obviously leads to issues around physical health.
When we talk about seniors who may have lived in a two-story home now are not
conducive to being able to do that because they're afraid of slips and falls, or
somebody's moved out of their home, or unfortunately a spouse has passed away,
they need to be in an environment which is positive to their mental well-being
and personal health.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we will be presenting this many times in the sitting of this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Pleased
to stand up and provide some information to the House to rectify some errors and
misinformation that is out there. There has been no change to the clinical
criteria for eligibility for personal care. We have and are still engaged in
active discussions with the personal care home operators to see if we can
improve still further on those criteria to make them more sensitive to the needs
of the individual.
What we
have done is we have taken a big load off seniors in that we have streamlined
the financial assessment piece for those people who are looking at personal care
home or home support. We are now in line with the rest of Canada. And we now, in
addition to the rest of Canada, have a hardship policy for those people for whom
that financial assessment may produce some hardship.
Just to
correct some further misinformation that's out there, as of the end of calendar
2017, 80 per cent of people in personal care homes had some degree of government
subsidy. As of the end of calendar '18, 83 per cent of people in personal care
homes have some degree of government subsidy – an increase. Subsidies are going
out there and we are increasing the number of people subsidized.
From the
vacancy point of view, Eastern Health has 70 people waiting for personal care
homes, and they're all waiting for a home of their choice. There are vacancies
to be had, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive, debilitating conditions
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities. Therefore, we petition
the House of Assembly as follows:
To urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which
includes the mandatory establishment of adequate ratio of one staff to three
residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health care
facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other
cognitive, debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety,
protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and other required care. This law
will include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for
monitoring and intervention, as required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition, of course, was originated by the group Advocates for
Senior Citizens' Rights. They have termed it as Lillian's Law is basically what
we're talking about here, which a lot of Members may be aware of. I have a lot
of signatures here today, a couple of hundred, primarily from CBS area, Clarke's
Beach, Brigus, Holyrood, a lot here from Lab City and some from St. John's
today.
Mr.
Speaker, basically what is being referred to here is the care of our seniors in
long-term care facilities. And while it is great to construct new facilities,
brick and mortar, what this speaks to is ensuring that there is adequate
staffing in place. There certainly have been stories – I encourage any Member if
you go on to the Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights Facebook site, you'll see
many stories shared of unfortunate situations that have happened with people's
loved ones in long-term care where there wasn't enough staffing there to take
care of their needs, to make sure that they were fed on time properly, to ensure
they were bathed and so on, and to make sure they don't get injured because
people can be aggressive and so on with Alzheimer's disease, dementia and stuff
like that, and make sure there's someone to monitor and watch them.
That's
what they're asking for. They believe it should be legislation because policy,
of course, can be changed overnight on a whim, and it's not a mandatory thing.
So,
that's what they're asking for, that's why I'm presenting the petition and there
will be more to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Delighted to stand and take the opportunity to do something that I think is long
overdue, which is to thank and recognize the hard work of those people who go to
work every day in our long-term care facilities to look after our seniors. They
do a grand job –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
– and I would encourage my
colleagues to support them in that endeavour.
We have
several approaches to the issue of staffing in long-term care. We look at
nursing and we actually provide 3.4 hours of dedicated nursing time per day.
However, that doesn't take into account the fact they have recreational therapy
time, they have music therapy time and they have group activities.
I spent
the whole morning on Friday in Lakeside Homes in Gander. I can tell you that the
atmosphere there was very homelike and solely down to the combined efforts of
management and front-line staff.
We're
not here to defend the indefensible and I have no problem with monitoring a
patient's safety. Indeed, I stood in this House and introduced an act to that
effect. Every RHA is now responsible for doing just that in their own regional
health authority, and long-term care facilities fall under that act, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in
areas where there are no sidewalks, no traffic lights and areas without the
proper safety, and this puts the safety of all these children at risk.
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the
safety of all children by removing the restricted 1.6-kilometre busing policy
where safety is a concern.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member
and the Minister of Education is going to get up after me and he's going to talk
about what they've done in the last number of years and what we haven't done in
the last number of years, but they've been in government now for almost four
years and have done absolutely nothing on this policy. He will also get up, Mr.
Speaker, and he will talk about courtesy seating and how they've given so many
courtesy bus seating to children along the way.
Well, I've spoke to a lot of people from my
area and from the Member for CBS's area where there is courtesy busing that's
put in place, but guess what? There are no seats on those buses – absolutely no
seats on those buses. So you can put it in there all you like, if the children
can't avail of it.
In my district, I have 17,000 cars a day
travelling along Torbay Road – 17,000 cars a day travelling along a road where
there are no sidewalks and children – at this time of year in particular, we've
seen the temperature change from rain to sleet to snow and it's very dangerous.
I'm not asking you, Minister, to say what
we didn't do or what wasn't done or what polices are in place. Are you going to
make any changes to this so the safety of these children are not – every day
that they leave to go to school that the safety of those children should be the
most important thing that we talk about here in the House of Assembly.
You've added some courtesy bus seating but
where they're no seats available, it's no good. Now, you'll get up and say again
what we didn't do, but I'm asking you: What are you going to do?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't
say that the problem lies with the previous administration. What I will talk a
little bit about, Mr. Speaker, is that they keep pushing and throwing out the
1.6 kilometres and eliminating the 1.6 kilometres. Mr. Speaker, there's not one
single province in this entire country that does not have a busing policy – not
one single province in this country.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, we talk about safety. Within all of the policies within this province,
within every province in Canada, is that if you live within the 1.6, it's a
responsibility of the parents to get their children to school in a safe manner.
Now,
they always keep talking about within the 1.6. Outside of the 1.6, we do not
pick up every child at every house. Outside of the 1.6 –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Four hundred metres.
MR. HAWKINS:
Four hundred metres.
So
they're eliminating 1.6 – so are you eliminating 1.6 or you want to put in 400
metres? These are discussions that need to be had because when you go out and
say a blanket we're removing 1.6, what does that really mean? Removing 1.6 is
going to be a significant cost to the province, somewhere in the vicinity of $10
million, which equates really to about 112 teaching positions or resources. So
are you going to replace one? Are you putting your emphasis on teachers or
reduction of teachers for these purposes?
So I can
speak – I hate the rule that's going to come in with 60 seconds because I can go
on for about another hour on this alone, so thank (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
I say thank God for 60
seconds, Mr. Speaker.
The
reason for this petition: The Foxtrap Access Road in CBS is a vital link to the
TCH and Peacekeepers Way, as well as being a heavily populated area. The road is
in need of immediate repairs and needs asphalt resurfacing, as well as shoulder
repairs. The road is listed for resurfacing in 2023 in the five-year roads
program. This is not soon enough, Mr. Speaker, and needs immediate attention.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to provide immediate repairs to the Foxtrap Access
Road.
Mr.
Speaker, this road is unlike other roads. I know Route 60 was a road I spoke
about a lot in the last session and I credit that the department did provide
repairs to that road and I thank them for that, but Foxtrap Access Road is a bit
different. It's a route – it's a trunk road to Trans-Canada, Peacekeepers Way.
Like I said, it's a very heavily populated road.
It's a
provincial road in the true sense of the word and it's in bad need of repair. I
acknowledge it's on the five-year roads program. I mean it has 27 cross-cuts
alone on this road. The shoulders are eroding. There are areas where a small car
would not get through; you got to cut around. The shoulders of the road are
gone. People are veering over the yellow line.
I make
numerous, repeat calls to the depot and they do what they can. Really, unless
you're getting hot patch, doing a proper job, it's not lasting. At the end of
the road, when you butt into Route 60, it's almost a ditch. Again, like any
road, it's not had upgrades for a long time, it's required and people in my
district are asking for these repairs to be carried out.
The
minister may respond, he may not, but I know last time he always responded with
the fact that, this road, probably the town should have taken it over and what
have you. This road is entirely in the province's purview, plus it's listed. So
they've acknowledged – I think it scored 350 out of 400. I got the score of that
one. I've asked for that for two years, but I found that out myself when I
looked and finally it made the list. So now I know what it's actually scored. It
was pretty easy when I looked and it was written down. They must have had that
on their list a while before that.
I want
just to stress the point that this road is in need of immediate repairs. The
patching is just not cutting it. It's a busy road. I don't know the volume of
traffic, but Route 60 has 22,000 cars a day, my guess is that Foxtrap Access
Road is close on that number. It needs repairs. I call upon the minister and the
department to give it, push it – it's already there, but in four years, this
road will not be fit, not for a car, but for a boxcar.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, we've made significant
investments in Route 60, the Peacekeepers Way. Last year, we were able to
actually pave the entirety of Salmonier Line on the north side, which is very
important. Because as the Member points out, there is a lot of traffic on those
roads coming in and accessing into Conception Bay South and the Conception Bay
South area, but the reality is these roads didn't get to these deplorable
conditions overnight.
I agree
with the Member, one of his points he made was the cross-cuts. And one of the
challenges that we have throughout the province is when you have municipal work
on provincial roads. Lots of times, Mr. Speaker, we do find ourselves in a
situation where the cross-cuts are an issue.
Mr.
Speaker, we're very fortunate this year. Through a new agreement with the
federal government, we have an extra $102 million over the next 10 years through
northern and rural to put into roads in our province. This year alone, we're
going to invest over $130 million in roads in our province – unprecedented
spending.
Mr.
Speaker, last year, we paved some 800 kilometres of road. Our roads plan is
working; we're seeing the results. It takes time, but one thing we've done is
we've taken the politics out of paving. If you look at the Auditor General's
report, if you look at the 2014 Auditor General's report, 46 per cent of all
priorities for roads back in their time were MHA priorities, not the priorities
of the people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the MHA for Harbour Main that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Marriage Act, be
now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Marriage Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Marriage Act.” (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to
stand once again in this hon. House during the first day of this new session. As
the Minister of Service NL, I've had the opportunity to stand on numerous
occasions to speak to amendments to various pieces of legislation such as the
Highway Traffic Act, Pension
Benefits Act, Corporations Act,
and Vital Statistics Act,
to name a few.
I have
said many times that Service NL is a department that touches the residents of
the province at many points throughout their lives. From birth certificates to
death certificates, obtaining a driver's licence, obtaining a marriage
certificate, legislating real estate transactions, inspection services, renting
a property or regulating pensions, Service NL has a role to play.
Today,
I'm introducing an amendment to the
Marriage Act which governs marriage in our province. When it comes to
marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador the current legislation states that, “A
member of the clergy or marriage commissioner shall not perform a marriage where
either party to the intended marriage is under the age of 16 years.”
This
effectively makes the minimum age of marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador 16
years of age. The act states that where a person is 16 or over consent of a
parent/guardian is required until they reach the age of majority or 19 years of
age, unless they are widowed or divorced. However, section 13(8) of the act
gives a judge the authority to allow an exception to the marriage under the
prescribed minimum age if the judge believes that a marriage will be in the best
interest of the parties, even though one or both of the parties to the intended
marriage is under the age of 16 years.
Mr.
Speaker, historically, the provision was used in Newfoundland and Labrador for
instances where someone under the age of 16 wanted to or may have been pressured
to get married. One of the reasons would have been in the case of a pregnancy,
where societal norms or families may have placed pressure on the woman or couple
to marry. Such marriages have become very rare in our province. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, our Vital Statistics Division is unaware of any examples within the
last 15 years. Since 2003 when records that allow for searches based on age
became available, 17 years of age is the lowest recorded age of any person
marrying.
Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and
divorce under the Constitution Act, 1867.
Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to marriage and
divorce, whereas provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of
marriage. This means that provinces have the authority to pass laws relating to
marriage ceremonies, including pre-ceremony requirements such as issuing a
licence, and can stipulate the qualifications of the person performing the
ceremony.
In July
of 2015, Mr. Speaker, the federal Civil
Marriage Act received Royal Assent. In June of 2015 the federal
Civil Marriage Act was amended to
state that: “No person who is under the age of 16 years may contract marriage.”
Additionally, section 293.2 of the
Criminal Code of Canada was amended to state that: “Everyone who celebrates,
aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the
persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
Given
the provincial Marriage Act is
inconsistent with the federal Civil
Marriage Act it would not have any merit from a constitutional perspective.
It would also mean that if a judge were to allow an exception to the provincial
age-of-16 requirement, any person who celebrated or participated in such a
marriage ceremony will be committing an offence under the
Criminal Code of Canada.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this means that our provincial legislation does not
align with federal legislation regarding the age of which someone can marry. It
also means that any justice authorizing a marriage under the age of 16 will be
committing an offence under the Criminal
Code of Canada. Given that the act is not aligned with the federal
legislation, and that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in this
area, I'm introducing a bill today that will amend the act to mirror the federal
legislation. This change will ensure that the legal age to marry in Newfoundland
and Labrador is 16 regardless of the circumstances.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important that we also look at the social impacts of marriage
under the age of 16. Research tells us that marriage for persons under the age
of consent disproportionately affects young girls. By prohibiting marriage under
16 years of age the Government of Canada was taking action to prevent forced
child marriages. These marriages often occur between young girls and older men.
The
United Nations Children's Fund states: “Child marriage often compromises a
girl's development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation,
interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational
advancement and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence.” Preventing
child marriage is important for protecting girls and women and advancing the
status of women throughout their lives.
While
not widely reported, these marriages do occur within Canada or occur in other
countries, with those impacted returning to Canada to live. According to a
September 2013 report by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, there were 219
confirmed or suspected cases of forced marriage in Ontario and Quebec from 2010
to 2012. Of these, in 57 per cent of the cases, people were taken out of Canada
to get married.
While
amending the legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador would not prevent child
marriages that occur outside of provincial jurisdiction, it is important, given
the role legislation has in setting norms in our society. By changing the
legislation, our government is indicating that child marriage is not acceptable
in the province.
The
Government of Canada has been applauded for taking a strong stance against
forced marriage. In 2017 it announced $650 million over three years in funding
for sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is also aimed at preventing
and responding to child early and forced marriage. Furthermore, the Feminist
International Assistance Policy was launched in June of 2017, which includes a
renewed commitment to support comprehensive approaches to addressing child
marriage, and more funding was also announced for women's organizations.
It is
essential that both federal and provincial lawmakers address such issues in our
society and that we align our legislation. The bill we have introduced on the
floor of the House today will help us do just that.
Mr.
Speaker, as I stated at the beginning of my comments, I have stood many times in
this House regarding amendments to various pieces of legislation. Each amendment
represents another improvement we have made in our efforts to help advance the
lives of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We made
a commitment through The Way Forward
to continue to identify opportunities for better outcomes and better services
for our residents. We recognize the ability we have to change lives for the
better and amendments to legislation affect all residents in all regions of our
province. Part of this commitment is to periodically review and amend the
legislation as required to ensure it is kept current in its purpose of serving
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to debating the amendment to the
Marriage Act with my hon. colleagues in this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you, Minister, for that introduction to the bill. There's not a whole lot that I
can add to the debate in terms of the content of the bill because it is, Mr.
Speaker, a very brief bill. It is one clause stating: “Subsection 13(8) of the
Marriage Act is repealed.”
The
minister just did a great job in terms of outlining how this change came about
and it's primarily following a 2015 change to the federal legislation. As the
minister explained, it is unlawful now not just to get married to someone under
the age of 16, but for any person to even participate in any planning of such a
wedding or attending such a wedding. That's considered a criminal offence that
carries up to a five-year sentence.
It was,
of course, Mr. Speaker, prudent of us in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to ensure that our legislation here is in line with the federal
legislation. Basically, we are removing the one clause that allowed a judge to
have the discretion to approve a marriage licence in special circumstances where
one or more of the people in the marriage were under the age of 16.
In
Canada, there's some jurisdiction for marriages with the federal government and
some of it with the provincial government. The federal government, under the
Civil Marriage Act, has the
legislative authority over marriage and divorce, but the provincial government
has the authority regarding the solemnization of the marriage or, that is, the
performance of ceremonies and licences. That is where the provincial
jurisdiction comes into play.
In our
province that authority is outlined in the
Marriage Act and it comes under the purview of the Department of Service NL.
Again, at the risk of being repetitive, we are, in making this change, following
the changes that were made at the federal level under the
Civil Marriage Act. I want to reiterate how important it is for
people to know that it is illegal in Canada now for a person to marry someone
under the age of 16 and, as well, for anyone else to participate in the planning
of such an event or attending such an event. It's very important, Mr. Speaker,
that awareness is out there for people to understand this.
My
colleague and I were just talking a short while ago about how back in the day it
was common probably. I know when my mother got married she was 20. She was
considered getting close to being an old maid then and a spinster at the age of
20; if you weren't married by 20, 21, you were getting old. Many people were
married at the ages of 15 and 16 and, as the minister said, in some cases that
was due to fact that they were carrying children but, in some cases, of course,
it was the way of life.
I also
talked about the boys in school. Today, we don't encourage child labour, but
back in the early '20s and '30s it was nothing for a strong, young man at the
age of 12 or 13 to leave school and go into the woods and start working, or go
fishing and start working.
We are
now in the year 2019 and there is certainly a much stronger resistance to
children getting married at such a young age and there is an opportunity for
women to have the freedom of choice to wait until later. This bill is very
important in addressing that freedom of choice for women as well, Mr. Speaker.
So certainly it's a bill that we, on this side of the House, will be supporting.
Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to talk a little bit, though, before I wrap up –
according to department officials, a number of provinces, BC, Saskatchewan and
Nova Scotia, still have similar references in their legislation, but the rest of
Canada have either repealed it or it didn't exist in the first place. So, we're
certainly happy to be supporting the repeal of clause 13(8). The proposed
amendment will come into force upon Royal Assent, so that will probably happen,
Mr. Speaker, before the session is over or certainly very shortly thereafter.
It is
certainly for me, as a female, a great honour to support this bill. I think it
is crucially important especially where, oftentimes, the party under the age of
16 was usually of the female gender, that I do think this is an important bill.
I certainly am proud to support this bill and I thank the minister for bringing
it forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
Good day, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to be back here in the House with our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I'm very
pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Marriage Act.
Since I became parliamentary secretary for Service NL, I have come to learn a
great deal of interaction our department has with the public on a daily basis. I
want to reiterate the minister's comments earlier by saying there aren't many
services you can avail of in our province that don't touch Service NL in some
way. With this highlight of their interaction also comes the responsibility to
ensure we are providing the best service possible to the people of our province.
Service
NL, through its Regulatory Affairs branch, is responsible for marriage
legislation in the province, through administration of the
Marriage Act. As the Minister of Service NL said in his remarks, our
department is responsible for the laws relating to marriage ceremonies,
including pre-ceremonial requirements such as issuing a marriage licence. We
also stipulate the qualifications of the person performing the ceremony, whether
clergy or a marriage commissioner.
Mr.
Speaker, marriage is defined as the process by which two people make their
relationship public, official and permanent. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there
were 2,158 registered marriages in 2018.
Under
Canada's Constitution, marriage is a federal power. The Canadian government has
passed laws that allows same-sex marriages and prohibits certain people related
by blood or adoption from getting married. They also have made changes to the
federal legislation to make it unlawful for anyone under the age of 16 to marry.
And today we are bringing Newfoundland and Labrador in line with that change.
It is
important to note that the federal changes also make it a criminal offence to
celebrate, aid or participate in a marriage, knowing that one of the individuals
being married is under the age of 16. Before the federal amendment was made, an
exception could be granted for someone under 16 if the judge believed the
marriage would be in the best interest of the parties.
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at other jurisdictions across the country, there are
several which have similar provisions to which that is currently in place in our
province. Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia's legislation include
the same provisions. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, however, recently
amended their legislation to eliminate such provisions. In Quebec, a person must
be at least 18 years old to marry; however, they may be able to apply to the
courts for authorization to marry at the age of 16 or 17.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, we are introducing the change to our provincial legislation. We
will bring our act in line with the federal government. The harmonization of
legislation is important for the people that government services, both
provincially and federally. This change also makes the act more modern and
better reflects the society in which we live.
Underage
or child marriage is defined differently in each country and occurs in extremely
high numbers in developing countries, particularly in Africa and the South Asia
region. However, according to Global Citizen, underage brides, who are often
made to leave school, are more likely to experience domestic violence and have a
higher risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications.
Amending
legislation regarding the age of marriage modernizes and updates the
Marriage Act to better reflect today's
society. It is important that the legislation of our province be consistent with
our federal partners in these matters. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that
we constantly review our legislation to ensure that it's contributing to a
better society.
Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of our government's continued commitment to improving
outcomes for the people we serve. The changes we are debating today follow a
long list of improvements we have made to legislation that falls within the
mandate of Service NL. All of our legislative changes speak to our government's
commitment to safe and sustainable communities throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I'm
delighted to join my colleagues today for debate of Bill 46 in this hon. House.
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.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 46. I thank the minister for the
opening comments that she has made and I join with my other colleagues in the
House in following her and speaking to the bill. I'm not going to repeat all the
things that were said. I don't think that's necessary, but I do want to say how
important it is that we are making this change to our legislation. Because, in
actual fact, since the change that was made to the federal legislation in 2015,
our legislation has been illegal. So now, with the removal of the possibility of
somebody being married under 16, we have brought our legislation in line with
what's happening, not just in Canada, but actually globally.
I'd like
to point out that, for the most part, the types of marriages that we are
considering here, the marriages that have happen with children under 16 and even
over 16, between 16 and 18, the vast majority of the children who are married
and have been married under those rules are girls, not boys. For the majority,
it's girls and older men. And, it's something that's not acceptable and now we
have removed the possibility of there being marriages under 16.
Unfortunately – I'm glad that we've done it but it's surprising that we aren't
the last jurisdiction in Canada to make the change. We still have three other
provinces that haven't done it: British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.
I certainly would hope that we soon would have all of our jurisdictions
recognizing the need to disallow children under 16 to be married. Very often
these marriages have been forced marriages; it's children being forced to marry.
We have
a couple of examples that have gone on right here in our own country which have
been disturbing actually, they had to do with religious sects; one was the Lev
Tahor sect which was originally from the US. They moved to Quebec and to Toronto
to avoid child protection laws. They regularly took young girls to certain US
states to be married. They'd get married in the States but bring them back here.
Back then it was considered fine because they were married.
Then we
had the members of the fundamentalist Mormon sect in Bountiful, BC. I think
we'll all remember; it's not that long ago. It was prosecuted for bigamy and
child abuse and the child abuse was forced child marriage. I think in all of
those cases, those forced child marriages were young girls being married to – in
relationship to the young girls, really old men.
What
we're talking about is an abuse and particularly an abuse of girls that has been
going on. I think it's good for us that we have finally joined with a growing
international movement among governments and organizations to prohibit and
prevent early marriage. I'm not going to go into all the details. The minister
did make reference to UNICEF and what UNICEF has said with regard to marriage
before the age of 18; not before the age of 16 but before the age of 18.
Here in
Canada we're included in that, between 16 and 18 there has to be parental
consent. I would like to think here in Canada we may want to move towards
looking at abolishing marriage between 16 and 18 as well. Not just allowing it
with parental consent but actually abolishing it. Then we'd be more in line with
what's being asked by groups like UNICEF.
The
United Nations has really dealing with this very substantially. In the UN
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – to
which Canada is a signatory and therefore, we, as a province are – it says: “The
betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all
necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age
for marriage ….” The 2017 International Human Rights Council resolution was
co-sponsored by Canada, recognizing the need to address child early and forced
marriage in humanitarian contexts and the 2015 human rights convention was
brought in.
The
amendments also criminalize forced marriage ceremonies and the removal of a
child from Canada for the purpose of underage marriage, which was something that
was going on with the religious sect that I talked about. So subsection 13(8) of
our Marriage Act has allowed
something, as I said a minute ago, that has actually been illegal for four years
in Canada.
The UN
Sustainable Development Goals includes target 5.3, which is the elimination of
child early and forced marriage by 2030. The goal is nowhere on a global level
would we have child early and forced marriages existing. Canada committed to
these goals and submitted a 2018 report on our country's contributions, which
included aid given to countries for prevention, plus our domestic statistics on
child marriage. As well, the proportion of women in Canada aged 15 to 19 who
were married or in common-law relationships was 1.1 per cent in 2016, which is
down from 1.5 per cent in 2011.
We are
showing that we can make a difference here in Canada. I think it's very
important that we continue to do that. Canada is considered a leader in the
movement to eliminate child marriage. The 2015 federal amendments, however, only
prohibit marriage under 16. Even though we're seen as a leader, we still do
allow marriage for 16- and 17-year-olds with parental consent.
I don't
think we should sit on our laurels, I think that we are giving leadership. I
think we should show that we do want to bring it down to zero here in this
country, and by doing that being a model for other countries that we work with
in the UN.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I just
want to speak a few minutes on Bill 46, the
Marriage Act. It's an interesting
topic we have here today about marriage itself.
I
remember my colleague from Conception Bay East - Bell Island last year did a
Member's statement on a couple that was married 70 years. I know that we all
watch the news in the evenings and see a lot of our friends and we'll see people
that will be married for 63, 65 years. It's amazing to see the couples are still
together that long.
I feel
that in years to come there'll be very few of those because people today are
getting married a lot later in lives. You'll see most people getting married in
their late 20s or in their mid-20s and stuff like that, but you hardly see them
getting married at 15 or 16 like they did years ago. I guess times have changed.
Also, when you talk about marriage, Mr. Speaker, I'm a marriage commissioner and
my success rate is very good so far, I have to say that first and foremost.
Today, when we talk about marriage, we just talk about how things have changed.
The traditional way that people got married years ago has changed.
I know a
lot of young people. I've done weddings in the Doctor's House out in Greens
Harbour; I've gone to Jamaica to do one. I've done them in people's kitchens,
I've done them downstairs in their living rooms and I've done them in backyards:
anywhere you can talk about, people today decide to get married and they want to
do that.
In
actual fact, a couple of weeks ago a real good friend of mine got married. He
never even told anyone about it, he just got married that day. Then he went out
and told his mom and they went out for supper that evening and that's the way it
is. We all know what the traditional marriage was in years gone by and it still
is today. There are still some people who like to go that way but it has
changed.
I'm sure
that everybody in this House supports this bill. It's important that we do
support the bill because I honestly feel that getting married under the age of
16 is too young also. The minister mentioned forced marriages. This is a way to
eliminate that also, so that people are not forced into doing a marriage.
Basically, what we're doing in this bill is we're aligning ourselves with the
federal legislation. The federal government has the responsibility of the
Marriage Act itself so we're just
aligning ourselves to ensure that a person can't go to a judge or to somebody
and just say: I have this reason to get married before the age of 16.
It's
important that even a person like myself that is a marriage commissioner – and I
have to say I'm after doing probably 50 marriages since 2005; I've done a lot of
marriages. It's important that we all know because if I ever performed a
marriage with a person under the age of 16 once this comes in, then I'm liable
also to be – I think the minister said it's up to five years you could be
incarcerated for doing something like this and even people that participate.
I think
we support this. I think it's a good bill; it's a sign of the times. Like I
said, God love all those people on the NTV News
in the evening that are celebrating their 60th and 65th wedding
anniversaries, but I think it's time that we come with the reality that you
shouldn't be married under the age of 16. This is a bill that I'm sure we will
all support here in the House of Assembly.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take long, but I do want to, I guess, just add my voice to the bill as
I always do, Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Marriage Act. I'm not going to repeat
everything that's been said, but basically what we're saying here is that you're
not able to get married – a judge can't look at a special circumstance and allow
somebody to get married under the age of 16, bringing us in line with federal
legislation, which currently we're not.
Technically, as has been said, a judge right now – if someone got married under
the age of 16 in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would be permitted under the
current act, you'd actually be guilty of a criminal offence based on the federal
legislation. So, I guess in that regard it's sort of a housekeeping thing, but a
very important one albeit, to bring us in line with federal legislation.
Of
course, once we get beyond that, it's all a matter of values and opinions and so
on. You know, we've heard Members talk about the fact that it's going to prevent
forced marriages, and particularly we see that type of thing happen primarily
with young girls that are forced into marriage with older men. Obviously that's
something that we don't want to see in this province or in this country.
Certainly, the vast majority of us don't want to see it for sure in this
country, and so it sort of deals with that.
I would
just like to say for the record that I do agree with my colleague from St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi again – jeez, I agree with her on a lot of stuff,
actually. But I agree with her on this one as well that, you know, for me
personally, because it is sort of a judgment thing I suppose, a value thing or
whatever, and I understand that times have changed, and I understand years ago
people got married at younger age.
I recall
stories – my mother was only 15 years of age when she left Wesleyville in
Bonavista North and went to St. John's to work in service – and I'm sure people
have heard of that concept – by herself and so on. And people were getting
married much younger in those times, but times certainly have changed. Again, to
go back to what the Member from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi said, personally, I
think it should be at the age of majority. That's just my personal belief.
That's
something, from a legal point of view, has been determined by legislators in
Ottawa. They've made the determination that 16 is okay, but for me, personally,
I think it should be the age majority. I still think 16 is too young to enter
into marriage. Any of us who are married or have been married, we all understand
the responsibilities that go along with marriage, the stress that can occur.
It's not always a simple thing, it's not all rosy and I think that young people
below the age of majority, personally, I don't think they're ready.
That's
just my opinion and, like I said, that would be a federal matter that's already
been decided. So, at the very least, we're saying that you have to at least be
16. As I said, we are bringing ourselves in compliance with the
Criminal Code, the federal legislation, so I will certainly be
supporting that.
Again, I
just wanted to put on the record being in support of 16 doesn't mean that I
don't personally believe that it should be higher than that, because I do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister for Service NL speaks now, she close debate.
I
recognize the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
stand again today to speak one last time to the amendments to Bill 46, An Act to
Amend the Marriage Act. As the Minister of Service NL, I see first-hand the
importance of the many transactions that my department completes every single
day for the people of this province.
One of
those significant vital events for residents is, in fact, marriage. As I said in
my earlier remarks, I want to highlight again how this change to the act will
align legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador with the federal legislation. The
Government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to
marriage and divorce, while provinces have the authority to pass laws relating
to marriage ceremonies, such as issuing a licence. They can also stipulate the
qualifications of the person performing the ceremony.
It is
important that our provincial legislation reflect the changes that were made to
the Civil Marriage Act in that no one
under 16 can marry. Mr. Speaker, we all know how important it is that we
continue to address the needs of the people of our province and ensure our
legislation is modern and reflects the society in which we live. Bringing this
amendment forward is a part of our government's ongoing efforts toward better
services and better outcomes for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I also
want to thank my hon. colleagues for their support of Bill 46 that we brought
forward here today in the House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 46 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Marriage Act. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently.
On motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The
Marriage Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 46, An Act To
Amend The Marriage Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Marriage Act.”
(Bill 46)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't have many questions on this bill. I
just have the one, Minister, and that is around the time frame. Where the change
to the federal legislation took place in 2015, why did it take until 2019 for
the change to occur here in this province? As well, what is your plan to inform
stakeholders about this change?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
People were still protected in that the
judge should still consider the federal law before granting permission to marry.
So, the protection would have been there. Given that the protection would have
been there, and the fact that Service NL has so much legislation to do, we
wanted to amend and modernize.
We did put this on the Order Paper in the
last sitting and here we are today, the first day in the House of Assembly,
bringing it forward. So this was our first opportunity, really, to bring this
forward.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Marriage
Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Bill 46
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 46.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 46 without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of Committees.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 46 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 46 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, prior to
speaking again, what I'd like to do, as I've discussed in this House before, is
I had given notice of a number of bills this morning and the only way,
procedurally, that we can move forward with first readings or second readings is
with leave of the House.
So, my
goal was to ask for first reading and second reading right now of Bill 48, but
prior to requesting that I would ask if I have leave from my colleagues across
the way.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave.
The hon.
the Government House Leader has leave. Please proceed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I say, first of all, thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 48, and I further move that the said
bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded the
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources shall have leave to introduce
a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act
– I'm sorry, I'm going to restart that.
It is
moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 48, 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.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act,” carried.
(Bill 48)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill
48)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Today.
On
motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by
leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
With leave of my colleagues
across the way, I would ask leave to introduce second reading of Bill 48.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, with leave from
my colleagues, I would move second reading of Bill 48.
I would
call Bill 48, second reading of An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand today to talk about Bill 48. I think I need a seconder for the
bill and I'm going to move Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act. And the seconder would be the Minister of Fisheries
and Land Resources – what a minister!
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act.” (Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand here today to speak about the Act to Amend the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act. Mr. Speaker, the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act
regulates the collective bargaining between fish harvesters and processors. The
collective bargaining framework for the fishing industry was created in 1971 and
has been amended several times in the ensuing years.
The
current model was established in 2006 with the creation of a three-person
Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel. This panel has a responsibility of collecting
and disseminating market information, establishing parameters for negotiations,
facilitating collective bargaining, acting as the arbitrator panel for the
parties in setting fish prices, setting hearing dates and setting fish prices
when the parties to the negotiations have been unwilling to or unable to agree.
Mr.
Speaker, this interest-based negotiation and binding arbitration process
prohibits strikes/lockouts in the industry and ensures that the raw material
pricing and conditions of sale are in place prior to the start of the fishing
season. A full-time mediator is employed by the panel to provide mediation
services to the parties during the collective bargaining process.
The
certified bargaining agent for the harvesters is the Fish, Food and Allied
Workers Union. There are two other organizations in the province that represent
fish processors: the Association of Seafood Producers and the Seafood Processors
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The most
recent amendments to the act were made in 2010 to provide further stability to
the industry by ensuring prices were established early in the season and
reinforced the responsibility of the parties to engage in collective bargaining.
Since then, additional amendments have been made and identified by panel
members, industry stakeholders and the Department of Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour. That will enhance the panel structure and the reconsideration
processes.
These
amendments are as follows, Mr. Speaker: the terms of appointment for members of
the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel; the terms of reconsideration by the panel
for the decisions; and the time period provided to the panel to reconsideration
requests.
Mr.
Speaker, the first amendment will provide flexibility to the appointment terms
of panel members. The panel is comprised of three regular members and two
alternate members. Currently, the act restricts appointment terms to three years
for all panel members. For regular panel members, they will continue to serve
until they are reappointed or replaced, but the alternate members – this is
where the change is coming – they cannot continue to serve unless they are
reappointed or replaced, so there's no continuity there.
The
amendment to the act will allow all members to be appointed and serve up to a
three-year term. This change will facilitate staggering appointment times,
allowing for flexibility and also providing continuity for the panel and the
retention of corporate memory, which is always important in expertise. It will
also provide the ability for alternate members to continue to serve until they
are reappointed or replaced.
The next
two amendments, Mr. Speaker, deal with the reconsideration of the panel
decision; changes to the terms for reconsideration request of a non-majority
processors' organization, and changes to the timelines for the release of a
decision from the panel respecting reconsideration.
We are
proposing that the panel be provided the authority to reconsider a decision upon
the request of a processor who has engaged in collective bargaining process with
the certified bargaining agent or who has appeared before the panel at the
original hearing. Currently, only the processors' organization that represents
the processors that produce the majority percentage of the fish species or the
accredited processors' organization can make a reconsideration request. Example
of this would be the FFAW and the Association of Seafood Producers.
Processors who do not fit in either of these categories such as a non-majority,
smaller or independent seafood producer currently cannot make reconsideration
requests. With this amendment, non-majority fish processors or processing
organizations will be allowed to submit a reconsideration request to the panel.
However, it is very important to note that just because the reconsideration was
submitted, doesn't mean that it'll be accepted at this point.
The
price decisions of the panel is an exceptional event and can only be engaged
when the operation of the fishery is in jeopardy, such as a significant market
decline or major change to the currency rate.
Mr.
Speaker, the final amendment deals with the timeline for the decision respecting
reconsideration. We are proposing that we increase the time the panel has to
make its decision in a response to the reconsideration request from 48 hours to
96 hours. Currently, within that small 48-hour time frame, if the
reconsideration request is submitted, the panel must be assembled and be
available, obtain the necessary information, contact all the parties involved,
conduct a hearing and make a decision. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that would
very difficult in a 48-hour time frame.
Over the
years, challenges have been identified with the current time frame with respect
to the availability of the parties on such short notice and the ability to
gather pertinent information that forms the basis for the reconsideration
request. The new 96-hour time frame, although it is only an extension of day,
will satisfy all parties and will ensure sufficient time for the panel to make a
well-informed decision.
Before I
conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the panel, the Seafood
Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Association of Seafood Producers,
the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union and the Department of Fisheries and Land
Resources were all consulted and are supportive of these proposed amendments.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is committed to the province's fishing industry and the
important role that the Fish Price-Setting Panel plays. It is felt that these
amendments will enhance the panel's appointment process, allow for the gradual
succession of panel members and provide stability within the panel operations to
improve the reconsideration process.
I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to support these amendments
that are more of a housekeeping nature to make the panel operate that much
better.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First
off, it's a start for me today getting used to this environment, so I better
start earlier than late. I want to thank the Member opposite for giving us time
over the last few days to have a briefing on this bill and answering questions
for us. As he said, the bill is more housekeeping and good housekeeping goes a
long way. The bill itself is set to deal with some unintended exclusions with
regard to minority groups from appeals and reconsideration.
Most of
what I'll deal with here and speak to has already been said, it's just the
reconfirmation of what we've heard from our meeting with the officials. The bill
would amend the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act and allow for regular and alternate members to
serve up to three years on the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel. It would also
allow non-majority fish processors and processors' organizations to request
reconsideration and increases the time in which the panel may respond to a
reconsideration request.
Mr.
Speaker, the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel comes under the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
It falls under the purview of Department of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour. The panel has three regular members and currently two alternates. The
act also provides for no strikes or lockouts. In the absence of a negotiated
settlement, the panel holds hearings and provides a decision on prices and
conditions of sale.
The
proposed amendments, as again mentioned by the Member opposite, to be considered
under the Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act regulations deal with the terms of appointment of members of
the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel, the terms of reconsideration by the panel
of a decision and the time period provided to the panel to respond to a
reconsideration request.
Four
amendments are proposed – two deals with appointments to the panel members; two
deals with reconsideration of a decision of the panel. Under the current
framework, regular and alternate panel members will serve up to a three-year
term. Alternate panel members will also continue to serve until they are
reappointed or replaced. Officials with the department suggest this change
facilitates staggered appointment times which allows for more flexibility,
continuity of the panel and retention of corporate memory and expertise.
Under
the current framework for reconsideration requests, and I quote: “A certified
bargaining agent, an accredited processors' organization or a processors'
organization that represents processors that produce the majority percentage of
a fish species may apply to the panel to reconsider a decision respecting price
and conditions of sale.”
Under
the proposed framework for reconsideration, it will allow for the non-majority
of fish processors and processors' organizations who have engaged in the
collective bargaining or appeared before the panel at the original hearing to
apply to the panel to reconsider a decision respecting price or conditions of
sale.
Mr.
Speaker, under the current framework, timeline for a decision respecting
reconsideration, subsection 3(3) of the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Regulations, 2011, provides the panel
with 48 hours to make a decision respecting reconsideration. The proposed
framework increases the time of the panel to make such a decision to 96 hours.
As I
said at the opening, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to meet with the
staff of AESL and the minister and discuss this. According to the departmental
officials, both the processors' organizations, that's the Seafood Producers of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Association of Seafood Producers, along with
the FFAW, are in agreement with these proposed changes. And I see no reason why
we would not support it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the bill?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and speak to this bill, An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act. It's pretty straightforward and I think my colleagues
have pointed that out. The amendments, as we were told in the briefing, are to
fix aspects of the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act which weren't working in practice. So, the
amendments that have been made have been amendments that have been requested by
the panel that is in place and we are told that the FFAW are in agreement with
these changes as well.
It's
important – I think one of the things that the changes to the membership of the
panel will do, especially providing alternate members on the panel to continue
to serve until reappointed or replaced, is really important because it does
maintain a corporate memory on the panel. I think that's a good goal to have, to
make sure that you don't have changes all happening at one time and losing the
memory of what has been part of the past history of the panel. So that corporate
memory is especially very much important.
The
other thing that the act does is to allow non-majority fish processors or
processors' organizations who have engaged in collective bargaining or appeared
before the panel at the original hearing to apply to the panel to reconsider a
decision respecting price and condition of sale. I think that's a very, very
good thing that no decisions are perfect, and to recognize that perhaps
sometimes when price and condition of sale have been set, perhaps there are
people out there who have experience of what's happening at that moment that
should be recognized. So, being able to have an appeal, I think, is extremely
important.
The
panel itself was identified in the 2005 Cashin report. And, of course, we all
know that the Cashin report was Richard Cashin who was the founder of the FFAW.
That report was primarily on the ill-fated pilot project and raw material
sharing in the crab fishery. Many of us will remember the debate that went on
with regard to the raw material sharing.
The
report condemned the raw material sharing concept and recommended in its place
that government establish a special standing fish price-setting panel, which
government did. I know there has been some controversy over this too with
certain people in the past, but I think we know that that panel is working. It
focuses on matters related to the price and conditions of sale of fish and it
facilitates access by parties to collective bargaining information relating to
the sale of fish, as well as acting as an arbitration panel for the parties in
setting fish prices.
So, it's
an extremely important party. It can also set fish prices if the parties to
negotiation are unable to agree on price. And there are times when that happens
and then you have to have somebody who is able to step in and make sure that a
decision gets made.
The
panel, in the past, has set prices on a variety of species: spring, summer and
fall shrimp fishery, as well as mackerel, squid, capelin, lumpfish, cod, whelk,
sea urchin and halibut. While it has been criticized by many players, as I've
said, it has been functioning for almost 14 years and is doing a good job.
The bill
we are amending today, which derived from the Cashin report, was passed in the
House of Assembly in 2006. The four amendments that we are making: two deals
with appointments to the panel, and two deals with reconsideration of a panel
decision. So, I think what we will get from these amendments is a panel that is
well constructed, a panel that makes sure that the corporate memory is
maintained on the panel, and we also will get a panel that is able and open to
reconsidering decisions that it makes. I think that's extremely important.
In the
current legislation it says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint
as many persons as he or she considers appropriate to serve as alternate members
of the panel, and the persons appointed hold office for three years and are
eligible for reappointment. It's amended to say the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council may appoint as many persons as Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers
appropriate to serve as alternate members of the panel for a period of up to
three years.
So
that's the difference in the panel; that people who are appointed to it and
people who are alternates may serve up to three years. It doesn't mean that they
have to serve for three years but up to three years, and the persons who are
appointed are eligible for reappointment. So if they're there for up to three
years, they can also be reappointed.
I'm not
going to go on. I think it's very straightforward. The reconsideration of a
panel decision makes all the sense in the world. You know, as I said earlier, we
can make decisions and to think that we've made the best decision, but if
there's a real concern out there, then reconsideration does need to be done, and
that's what this allows for, Mr. Speaker.
Having
said that, there's one other change I think that's important, and that has to do
with the time for reconsideration. The current regulation says a decision
respecting reconsideration shall be made by the panel within 48 hours from the
time the panel has acknowledged receipt of an application for reconsideration,
and the panel was finding that that just wasn't long enough. So, we have an
amendment that the time for reconsideration is up to 96 hours. This, I think,
will make it better for the panel in trying to keep within the spirit of
reconsidering. With a longer timeline, it will be something that will help them
as they do a second thought in the reconsideration, and we were told in the
briefing that the FFAW and others are in agreement.
So
having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have had the moment to do so, and I
will be supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the bill?
If the
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now, he will
close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to take this opportunity to say a big thank you and welcome to the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Very good job on your first
time in the House, I got to say, good job.
Even
more important than that, I would like to say thank you for supporting the bill;
it's a very good piece of legislation. There is not much to it, but it's
realigning the piece of legislation with where it should have been in the
beginning, and it's industry-driven. So the people on the panel are bringing it
forward and we're implementing what they want to make it run a little bit more
efficiently. I'd also like to say a big thank you to the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi for her support on this bill. It's much appreciated.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't say a big thank you to the stakeholders that were consulted
during this process to bring forward their ideas. The amendments that we're
making today for this piece of legislation are out of the minds of the people
that are involved in developing it, so I'm very happy they came forward, and
we're happy that people in the House of Assembly here today saw fit to support
this piece of legislation.
I won't
belabour it, Mr. Speaker. I'm very happy that my colleagues on both sides of the
House will be supporting this piece of legislation.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 48 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow. (Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Similar
to the last bill, prior to introducing it, I must seek leave from my colleagues
so that I can move first reading. So I would ask that leave be provided.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
For which bill?
MR. A. PARSONS:
For Bill 49.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture – innovation and
industry –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
– Industry and Innovation –
I'll get it someday – for leave to introduce a bill entitled an Act To Amend The
Historic Resources Act, Bill 49, and I further move that the said bill be now
read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act,
Bill 49, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation to introduce
a bill, “An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act,” carried. (Bill 49)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Historic Resources Act. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by
leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would seek
leave from my colleagues to proceed to second reading of Bill 49.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader
has leave.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I would call from the Order Paper, Bill 49, second reading of An Act To
Amend The Historic Resources Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my
pleasure to stand here and move, seconded by the Member for Placentia West -
Bellevue, Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.” (Bill
49)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
rise in the House to speak to amendments on the
Historic Resources Act. The Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and
Labrador is a Crown corporation that was created through the
Historic Resources Act. It has the
mandate to help preserve the rich built heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Heritage Foundation does this through educational and outreach initiatives,
along with programs to recognize the province's heritage and to provide
financial support for the preservation of designated structures. In addition to
encouraging and supporting the preservation of the province's architectural
heritage, the Heritage Foundation actively promotes the safeguarding of this
province's intangible cultural heritage and recognition of aspects of our
history and culture.
The
Heritage Foundation also provides advice and information on a variety of topics,
including: How to preserve and restore a heritage building, cultural
inventorying and mapping, the protection of heritage districts, utilizing
heritage resources for community development and how to undertake community oral
history and intangible cultural heritage projects. It is important to note that
the Heritage Foundation designates heritage structures for the province making
them eligible for restoration grants. As well, it designates registered heritage
districts to support their preservation, management and development.
The
Heritage Foundation is an independent Crown entity that is governed by the
Historic Resources Act. While
government provides the entity with an annual grant to support various programs,
it is not involved with its day-to-day operations. This amendment is a routine
matter intended to align the legislation with that of other Crown corporations
and agencies of the provincial government by removing section 27 of the
Historic Resources Act, which is
referenced to the Financial Administration
Act, the FAA. Honourable Members will recall a similar amendment made to the
Arts Council Act just last year.
The FAA
is the primary legislation that governs the province's financial management and
applies to all departments of government. However, as I've already noted, the
Heritage Foundation is a Crown corporation and not a core department of
government. The requirements for operating and reporting that are contained
within the Historic Resources Act put
the entity at odds with the rules of the FAA.
When the
Heritage Foundation was established the intention was to provide, Mr. Speaker,
operational flexibility required to manage its programs. It has operated that
way since it was established. This allows it to provide flexibility in
administering its grants to third parties. Removing and replacing this section
from the Historic Resources Act will
align this legislation with that of other Crown corporations and agencies within
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In order
to ensure that there is an appropriate financial accountability for the Heritage
Foundation, the act will include a requirement for the Auditor General to audit
the financial statements. I will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General has
been auditing the Heritage Foundation's financial statements for a number of
years, but this concretely puts it in the act.
The act
will also set the financial year-end for March 31 as it is also the current
practice. These amendments will ensure that the Heritage Foundation is indeed in
compliance with its legislation as was identified by the Office of the
Comptroller General. Our government remains committed to the arts community in
the province and values the important role the Heritage Foundation plays in
preserving and protecting our province's heritage.
To recap
the changes to the Historic Resources Act,
this, again, will put into practice how the Crown entity has operated since
inception. I look forward to dialogue and debate this afternoon on Bill 49 and
look forward to what other speakers have to say in contributing to second
reading and further into Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you, Minister, for the introduction to this bill. I think we're being fairly
efficient here in the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We're on our third bill
and this bill, as well, is mostly housekeeping. That's why, I guess, the debate
is not quite as long because they're just standard changes that need to be made.
This
bill in particular deals with the section of the
Historic Resources Act pertaining to
the Heritage Foundation. It's important to keep in mind that the
Historic Resources Act is much broader
than just the Heritage Foundation, but this housekeeping piece speaks just to
the Heritage Foundation itself.
The
Historic Resources Act currently
requires the Heritage Foundation to be compliant with the
Financial Administration Act. This, of course, is problematic as the
Financial Administration Act was
designed to regulate government departments and not Crown agencies. For example,
the Financial Administration Act
governs the Treasury Board, public debt and the various departments.
This
bill will remove the requirement for the Heritage Foundation to follow the
Financial Administration Act, which is
currently listed in section 27 of the Historic Resources bill. Instead, it
requires the Heritage Foundation to have its financials reviewed by the Auditor
General on an annual basis. Having an audit completed by the Auditor General is
the current practice which the foundation has been following since its creation,
so it's just bringing the act in line with the practices the foundation is
following.
Most
boards' and agencies' legislation do require that the Auditor General review the
financials of the corporation. In the briefing that was held for us, Mr.
Speaker, officials noted that the Legal
Aid Act, the Public Trustee Act and the
Innovation and Business Investment
Corporation Act all contain the requirement to be audited by the Auditor
General and not the requirement to follow the
Financial Administration Act, or FAA.
MHAs in
the House may recall that late last year the House passed an amendment to the
Arts Council Act. This amendment is
identical to the one being considered today. In that bill we removed the
requirement to follow the Financial
Administration Act and we replaced it with an audit completed by the Auditor
General. This gives flexibility, Mr. Speaker, to the Heritage Foundation to
award multiple-year funding and carry over unused funding and the like. It
certainly has advantages for the foundation.
The
fiscal year would continue to be in line with government's fiscal year, running
from April 1 to March 31. This legislative change was recommended, actually, by
the Office of the Comptroller General at the Department of Finance. They're
going through a process where they're ensuring that the financial oversight
provisions contained within all of the boards' and agencies' legislation is all
consistent and appropriate, Mr. Speaker. In the briefing it was noted that this
legislation was created in 1985 and the
Financial Administration Act requirement was added at that time.
Before I
close out, Mr. Speaker, I'll talk a little bit about background of the Heritage
Foundation. It was established in 1985, as I just said, with a purpose to
stimulate an understanding and appreciation for the architectural heritage of
the province, to support and contribute to the preservation, maintenance and
restoration of buildings and other structures of architectural or historical
significant in the province and to contribute to the increase and diffusion of
knowledge around architectural heritage in the province.
MHAs may
recall as well there was a recent heritage poster contest. Heritage is very
important to us here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our heritage shapes who we
are and will continue to shape us, I think, well into the future. It's where our
strong characters come from, I have no doubt.
The
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation provides an annual grant
to the Heritage Foundation. This most recent grant for 2018-2019 was $397,700.
The year previous to that it was $442,900; 2016-2017 the grant was $463,000; and
in 2015-2016 the grant was $515,500. That information, Mr. Speaker, is available
in the Estimates budgets of the House of Assembly and the department.
These
grants provide operational funding to the foundation and educational programs,
in addition to covering their office, administrative and communications costs,
Mr. Speaker. It is certainly prudent for the foundation to be having its books
reviewed each year by the Auditor General; it is a practice that they have been
following. Today's amendment to the bill just brings that practice in line with
the wording of the legislation itself.
We
certainly will be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a delight and an honour to stand in this Chamber in my place and
represent the good people of Placentia West - Bellevue and speak to this act
that is before the House today.
I'm
certainly pleased to speak to the amendments to the
Historic Resources Act and to speak more about the Heritage
Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador and its mandate to help preserve the
rich built heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed, all across our
province.
It was
just a few weeks ago the minister and I were at St. Bonaventure's College for
the unveiling of the poster winners for National Heritage Day, an initiative led
by the Heritage Foundation. I believe there were over 3,000 entries in that
poster contest, Mr. Speaker. That is heartwarming to say the least. It is a sign
and a signal that the heritage and the culture of our province is alive and well
in the minds and hearts of our young people. It is indeed wonderful to see.
In fact,
one of the regional winners was a young lady from the District of Burin - Grand
Bank, Jenna-Wade Drake. I saw her depiction of the Mariner's Memorial in Grand
Bank. It was a beautiful depiction, Mr. Speaker; very artistically talented,
creative, of course. The provincial winner was Brooklyn Nichols. I believe she's
from the Member for Cape St. Francis's area. I know her grandmother, Rose, quite
well. Many of us would here in the Legislature. Congratulations to Brooklyn. She
was quite happy to get her iPad. I think she's going to have to share with her
nan.
In any
case, Mr. Speaker, I do digress from time to time, but it's certainly good to
see the Heritage Foundation doing this type of outreach and engagement with
youth across the province. They have a number of programs in addition to this,
Mr. Speaker, which support communities to preserve and develop their heritage
resources.
The
Crown corporation has designed approximately 340 registered heritage structures
all across Newfoundland and Labrador, all of which are eligible for heritage
restoration grants. As well, it has designated seven provincial heritage
districts which comprise some of the most important collections of heritage
structures and features in the province.
The
Heritage Foundation has a wealth of technical knowledge and expertise on
preserving the province's built heritage and is the go-to source for heritage
preservation advice. It is recognized across Canada and beyond for its role in
safeguarding Newfoundland and Labrador's intangible cultural heritage.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a term I think that's worth expanding on, “intangible cultural
heritage.” A good example of this would be the work the Heritage Foundation did
along with the Arnold's Cove Heritage Foundation in my district where they went
out and did recordings of persons who had resettled from the various communities
of Placentia Bay and settled in Arnold's Cove.
There's
actually an app, Mr. Speaker, that you can download on your phone and as you
walk through Arnold's Cove your GPS location will be triggered to evoke one of
the stories from one of the persons that moved in, depending on where they lived
and where they moved in to. These are the types of examples, not only about
painting up houses or fishing stages, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly about also
preserving, not only our built heritage, but the intangible cultural heritage.
Last
year, I had the opportunity to attend one of their seminars, Mr. Speaker. They
were building on the work they did in Arnold's Cove – which was revolutionary;
much of what happens in Placentia West - Bellevue is, from time to time. They
were taking in the model of the app and adapting it for the Battery so that
tourists and residents alike, as they walked through the Battery could get a
sense of the history and the stories. These are things that the Heritage
Foundation certainly does.
Its work
is engaging senior citizens in the province to share their stories. Their
stories received a honourary mention for the Governor General's History Award
for Excellence in Community Programming. The Heritage Foundation is a Crown
entity, Mr. Speaker, but a very talented group of individuals. A dedicated
volunteer board of directors, dedicated truly to preserving the heritage of our
province. They are to be recognized for that and they certainly were by
receiving this honourary mention from the Governor General.
The goal
of this project, Mr. Speaker, was to capture the stories and memories of
seniors, to share these stories with their communities and to make them freely
accessible to the general public. The Oral History Night Roadshow saw the
Heritage Foundation travel to 10 communities to host oral history nights,
conduct follow-up to oral history interviews and create a series of community
history booklets.
The
foundation is currently involved in two exciting initiatives, Mr. Speaker, to
document the building traditions of this province. One of these is a new
heritage paint colour chart. With the demise of Matchless paint, the old colour
chart is no longer usable. The Heritage Foundation is partnering with the Paint
Shop and Benjamin Moore Paints to develop a new heritage colour chart based on
extensive historical research. It is anticipated that this will be launched in
the late spring.
Another
initiative, Mr. Speaker, involves an oral history project to capture the
knowledge of an older generation of carpenters who had an intimate understanding
of building with wood in this province. The goal is to pass this knowledge on to
a younger generation of carpenters and to people who own and manage heritage
properties.
Mr.
Speaker, it really truly is all about preserving our heritage and culture and
the passing down of skills. In fact, as I've said here I believe in a statement
not that long ago, evenings in the shed with Rev. Fred, also in Arnold's Cove,
where they go in and they build a rodney together as part of the congregation –
that's about passing on the skills and traditions of days gone by and hopefully
days present and future to come. It's work that the Heritage Foundation does
that is very important to those types of other activities that then spin off
from types of work that they're doing.
I think
it's worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that the Heritage Foundation recently launched
the Adapting Heritage Toolkit on its website, which provides a variety of
resources and information for individuals and groups who are interested in how
we can adapt our heritage to present day needs.
What do
I meant by this, Mr. Speaker? Well, finding new uses for underutilized
structures, innovative operational models for managing heritage structures,
using technology to make heritage buildings more sustainable.
Mr.
Speaker, I think of my own district, of course, I think of St. Gabriel's Hall in
Marystown, a former RC church hall that had been left to rot, basically, and was
taken on by a volunteer group. With assistance from the Heritage Foundation and
other entities, they were able to restore it to its historical significance.
Because anyone who would know Marystown, it is a fairly new industrial town, Mr.
Speaker, but there certainly are facets of historical achievement and context
that ought to be preserved.
No
different than I think of Burin or Grand Bank, if we look at the Bait Depot, a
building that was used, of course, to store bait over the years, has been
restored and is now used for a variety of functions in Grand Bank. So we're
seeing this all over, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly important that they would find the new uses for those underutilized
structures, but also to use technology to make heritage buildings more
sustainable.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister has referenced, the Heritage Foundation is an
independent Crown entity that is governed by the
Historic Resources Act. These legislative amendments are routine and
intended to align this legislation with that of other Crown corporations and
agencies of the provincial government by removing section 27 of the
Historic Resources Act, which is in
reference to the FAA, the Financial
Administration Act.
Mr.
Speaker, as has been mentioned my Members opposite and the minister himself,
this is somewhat of a housekeeping bill to bring the Heritage Foundation in line
with our entities and corporations of the Crown. This is a very important piece
of legislation, though, nonetheless, to ensure their sustainability as time goes
on and to protect the good work that they do.
Just
last week, the minister and I had an opportunity to be in Gander for Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador. There's such a positive feeling in the province, Mr.
Speaker, about tourism, certainly, but also so important to tourism is
preserving our heritage and culture.
We saw
just recently the launch of the 2019 tourism ad, which has seen the largest
number of views on YouTube: 650,000 views. The next highest to that was the goat
on the horse, some 400,000 over a three- to four-year period; and, just in some
weeks, we've had over 650,000 views. Much of the scenes depicted in this year's
tourism ad was of the beautiful Burin Peninsula, scenes such as the still waters
of Fortune Bay East and the beautiful vistas of Parkers Cove and areas, Mr.
Speaker.
There
was some sheep and a dory up in Collins Cove in Burin, and a tree in Little
Harbour. Mr. Speaker, it's just a beautiful ad and it is reflected in the number
of views. The number of views has been phenomenal. Attracting tourists here is
one thing and then providing a product for them – we have very talented
operators. But having heritage preserved in its tangible and intangible ways is
so important to our tourism industry. That is why the work of the Heritage
Foundation is extremely important to the economy. It's extremely important to
all of our communities, both urban and rural.
This is
why we are putting forth this amendment and putting such value on it, Mr.
Speaker, as it will allow the Heritage Foundation the operational flexibility
required to manage its programs. Our government values the important role the
Heritage Foundation plays in preserving and protecting the province's heritage,
and we look forward to seeing continued progress on the organization's important
work.
Mr.
Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister, I fully endorse this
piece of legislation and I'm certainly happy to see the support from both sides
to continue the important work of the Heritage Foundation.
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 Bill 49 which is the
Historic Resources Act and it's an amendment. It's a bit of a
housekeeping issue. It's not a significant change to the bill, but it gives us a
chance to speak to some of the issues around our Heritage Foundation and our
intangible cultural heritage.
So what
the bill does is it repeals and replaces subsection 27(1) of the
Historic Resources Act regarding the
Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. The 1985 act – that's a while
ago now – required that the foundation comply with the
Financial Administration Act. We want all of our institutions to
comply with that; however, there are certain specific needs of some of our
institutions that require a little more flexibility, not because they're
ineffective or inefficient but because of the work that they have been tasked to
do. So they need a little more flexibility so that they can do the work in the
way that's really responsive to the reality of our province.
So, this
is a really good amendment. This was done to ensure that the Auditor General
would audit the financial statement as part of its status as a non-profit Crown
agency of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. What it's
saying here is that the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador is a
non-profit Crown agency. We want to give it a little bit of flexibility. Again,
so it can be the most effective it possibly can with the task that it has been
given.
The
legislation governing the Heritage Foundation still stipulates compliance with
the act, which was an oversight. So, it needs to be changed up a bit. The new
wording clarifies what has been the practice for 30-some years. The foundation's
annual statement is audited by the Auditor General and the financial years April
1 to March 31, but it doesn't have to comply with the
Financial Administration Act. So what that means, the act now only
applies to departments and restricts their autonomy, prohibiting them from
carrying money over from one year to the next or managing their own projects.
Well,
this Crown agency needs to be able to carry money over, not because they've been
ineffective in their planning but because of the kind of work that they're
doing. Sometimes – we have our fiscal year is April 1 to March 31 and that
doesn't fit all projects, particularly when we're looking at restoring heritage
buildings, that it takes time, you need expertise, you need to raise other
money, so this gives the Heritage Foundation flexibility.
Again,
it's not because they are inefficient; it's not that at all. It's about giving
them flexibility so they can be even more efficient and that they spend their
money – which is so important to the task of the Heritage Foundation. They're
able to spend their money wisely.
So, it
still means they're accountable. That's very important to say that they are
accountable. So the amendment will align the Heritage Foundation with similar
organizations such as the Legal Aid Commission – we know they need flexibility –
and Arts NL, which was recently changed; we did that in the last session, or the
last sitting. I'm not sure which is the proper, session or sitting, but anyways
we did that a few months ago the last time we met – and which are subject to
annual Auditor General audits but not the
Financial Administration Act.
This is
a good thing, Mr. Speaker. And, in 2018, the Auditor General reviewed agencies,
boards and commissions and found these discrepancies. So, they're cleaning that
up.
I want
to say at this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have a vision
to know how important it is to not only restore, but protect our built heritage
and our intangible cultural heritage. I'm going to talk a little bit about that.
What that does is it instills a certain amount of pride. Also, I don't know, was
it Churchill who said if we don't know where we've been, we don't know where
we're going?
I'll talk a little bit about some of our built heritage and
how incredibly lucky we are that there have been – and it's often volunteers
throughout the province who have identified the treasures that belong to us as
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that tells our stories, that tells our
stories of hardship, that tells our stories of resilience, that really
identifies what's important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
particularly, as well around the intangible cultural issues.
I want to just say a little bit about the Heritage
Foundation. It was established in 1984 so that makes it over 30 years old – 35
years, I guess. Would that be 35 years? Yeah, that's 35 years. They have an
anniversary this week, they should be celebrated. They're a not-for-profit
organization. They have a government-appointed board of directors with an
operating grant from government to assist in its designation and grant programs.
They need that flexibility to assist them in their grant programs because of the
specific type of work that it entails. The foundation can designate heritage
structures upon application by the owner. In exchange, the owner can be eligible
for restoration grants and we see that all over our province.
I was in Bonavista on the weekend and I saw the Bonavista
Lighthouse. What's happening in Bonavista is so exciting, the restoration of
many, many historic buildings and houses in Bonavista. This has really been
championed by John Norman, who's taken it upon himself, Bonavista Living, to
really protect some of the built heritage of that town, of that municipality.
It's incredibly exciting to see what's happening. The whole town is involved in
it.
Also, houses that have been abandoned, that people have
felt should be taken down – I also live part time in Perry's Cove and there are
very few historic buildings left there; they were taken down. John Norman has
had this vision with a team of people from that area who've seen buildings that
people said, oh, we should just tear those down – they're actually restoring
them. If they're not in a location that makes sense for the restoration, they
actually pick them up and move them
and replant them in a place that makes more sense. It's really, really
exciting and it builds pride in the community, it creates employment in the
community and it also presents tourism opportunities.
When we
talk about tourism, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't just talk about tourism as it
relates to people from away. We need to talk about tourism, too, as it relates
to the people who live here, the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador
because we, too, are those tourists and what's important to us matters.
When we
look at what's happening in Trinity, Port Union – Port Union is an incredible
example of a built heritage that we've almost lost. That was a union town that
was led by Coaker and it's now being renovated and restored. That was one of the
first towns that had domestic electricity for its people. They had a printing
press, they had a bottling factory. They did absolutely incredible work. If we
didn't restore those buildings and that part of Port Union, that history would
be lost.
Currently, you can go through the print shop, there are lots of displays about
the history of Port Union. The houses where workers live are almost all falling
down, but they are being restored now as well. Although it's legislated – it's
also active in education, the Heritage Foundation. It assists municipalities and
community organizations regarding building restoration, heritage inventory
mapping – mapping, that's great – protection of heritage districts and community
oral history. There's Trinity, there's L'Anse aux Meadows, there are beautiful
places in Labrador that are also restoring buildings.
Also,
its legislated mandate is architectural heritage. It started out preserving
churches, housing and commercial buildings – that's how it started – and it's
now also working on the classification and preservation of sheds and stages. I
was in Maberly and they have a stage that they've reconstructed and it's a thing
of beauty.
When we
look in Pouch Cove and the stages that are there and stone walls out around the
Bay Roberts area, the people in Bay Roberts were known for their stone walls and
for their expertise in building that; so the restoration, the excavation of
stone walls and seeing what a role stone walls played in our province, but also
the great builders of stone walls. The Root Cellar Capital of the World right in
Elliston; and English Harbour, they are preserving stone walls out there. Then
there's also the issue of intangible cultural heritage. What's happening in that
area, Mr. Speaker, is so incredibly exciting.
The
Heritage Foundation is now also heavily involved in intangible cultural heritage
or living heritage: our customs, our skills, our activities and expressions. It
includes a lot of traditional knowledge, land and fishing areas and boat
building. We can see there was an international boat building festival here in
the province that boat builders from all over the world attended; again, the
pride we have and the incredible skill that boat builders had in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Then
there was the whole area of food preparation, gathering and folk medicine. When
we look at what Lori McCarthy is doing from Cod Sounds taking people out for
boil ups. Everything that is eaten or drank in the boil up is stuff that's
gathered from the land, like lovage and slicing up oysters that you harvest,
then cooking them on hot rocks and then serving them up with blue oyster plant
leaves, periwinkle snails and sea urchins.
We know
about britches and cod sounds. Most people from away don't know what that is and
a lot of our younger people don't know what that is. Most of us here in the
House know about what that is, so celebrating our traditions, our food
gathering. You look at Raymonds, one of the world's best restaurants and chef,
Jeremy Charles, and his use of traditional herbs and traditional ingredients for
his award-winning food.
Then
there's the roots, roars and rants festival –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Roots, Rants and Roars.
MS. ROGERS:
Roots, Rants and Roars
Festival celebrating music, food, dancing, fabulous cultural – and then
Aboriginal languages. We see a renaissance in Aboriginal languages and people
teaching Mi'kmaq online, free online to anybody who will take the time to learn.
We look
at the work of the art of Mary Ann Penashue, an Indigenous artist, an Innu
artist and her fabulous work. She had a one-woman show last year at the
Christina Parker Gallery. Then Jon Howse; the Provincial Art Bank here has
bought a few of his paintings. I chose them for my office but they were taken
away from me because they went on tour. I want them back; just fabulous,
fabulous modern Indigenous art that we are celebrating this, and the Heritage
Foundation is part of that, unveiling our culture and shining a light on it and
celebrating it.
Then our
regional English and French dialects and culture. I was with some folks this
weekend and someone asked me: Did you have a chance to look at it? She was
talking about a magazine. Did you do your look at it? That was an expression
that she used. We talked about a lot of expressions that are no longer in use
but are different all over the province.
And when
we look at Colleen Power who is singing in French and, again, that renaissance
of the francophone community in Newfoundland and Labrador and celebrating their
culture, their music and their traditions and their expressions.
I can
remember when mom would say: Coopy down for that. That's a word that came from
French: Couper. But when we see the anglicization and usage of French words from
all along the West Coast, and my mother was part of that and her family was part
of that.
Then we
have our story telling festivals and our music festivals. The Crow's Nest in St.
John's has storytelling; they have a storytelling circle every week that's open
to the public. Then when we look at the festivals in Cow Head. Then Joe Goudie;
Joe Goudie when he took people on his Gander boat trips and teaching people
about those expeditions. Elizabeth Penashue, who would walk people through the
country in Labrador, teaching about food, teaching about Indigenous customs and
Indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge, herbal knowledge, medicine
knowledge.
How
lucky are we, Mr. Speaker, to have those people with that vision and that
commitment to make sure that we restore our built heritage, but also to restore
and to hold on, to explore again our intangible cultural heritage.
A lot of
people don't know this, Mr. Speaker, but UNESCO created an international
convention on safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in 2003 with a range
of related policies and programs, and the Heritage Foundation is included in
that, they're advisors to that. How great is that? We have lots to be proud of.
We know
that right now Jerry Dick is the executive director – Mr. Jerry Dick – of the
Heritage Foundation and what a great work he's doing and his team, again, to
ensure that we don't lose those treasures. And not only that we don't keep them
in the back, in the years behind us, but that we also revitalize them and
continue to use them. How lucky are we?
The
Heritage Foundation has an Intangible Cultural Heritage office which works
closely with Memorial's Intangible Cultural Heritage initiative and together
they have formalized an Intangible Cultural Heritage Strategy. They are doing
the strategy, Mr. Speaker, how important that is. So it's not just willy-nilly;
they actually have a specific strategy. They are planning, they're using their
money and their resources wisely with a plan that directs the work that they're
doing.
Here's
another thing, Mr. Speaker, that people may not know, that our province, along
with Quebec, has been nationally recognized as being at the forefront – imagine
that, our little province, 520,000 people in economic turmoil, that we are
recognized as being at the forefront of intangible cultural preservation work in
this country. And the director of the Intangible Cultural Heritage office is now
an advisor to UNESCO, again, coming from our province.
So,
right now, Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes left, but the cultural and the
heritage community are waiting for a new cultural strategy. It's been a while,
and they're waiting for it because they know how important strategies are,
because what they do is they direct where you're going to put your resources,
what's your work plan, how you can most effectively use your resources and
really where you want to go. And it's about a vision, and we know how important
that is.
So,
hopefully, that strategy will include a review of the
Heritage Resources Act – hopefully, it's been a while. As we know
it's been about 30 years, so it's time. And among other things that need to be
updated in the act is to broaden the purposes of the Heritage Foundation to
reflect its current activity in response to our current interest in work in
preserving all of our heritage, not just architecture but other structures, and
our intangible cultural heritage.
Mr.
Speaker, I also have a question for the minister, and I hope that in committee –
what's happening with our building, Colonial Building, millions and millions and
millions of dollars put into the Colonial Building, the restoration of the
Colonial Building and it lies dormant, it lies fallow. I'm sure it's not good
for the building for the work that's already been done, and we know that
millions has been done, and it's a jewel. It's a jewel in our province, in our
history, but also architecturally, and nothing that I know of is happening.
And
everybody's asking, what's happening to our Colonial Building? When will we see
it finished and the restoration finished? When will we see it open? It's space
that is so vital to the heritage community. It can be used in that way. So
that'll be a question that I hope the minister will be able to respond to.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat now, and, again, I want to thank all those who
have worked so hard to preserve, to recognize and to promote our cultural
heritage, our built heritage and our intangible cultural heritage as well. We
have a lot to be proud of.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand and speak in the hon. House and talk to something that's very
important to the District of Bonavista. Certainly, this
Historic Resources Act and the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland
and Labrador is something very important to my district. It's certainly great to
see the NDP support of good things happening in the District of Bonavista and
it's nice to see a nice endorsement from the Leader of the NDP, and I guess it's
not all doom and gloom with them. So it's good to see them recognize some good
things happening and the good work that the people of the district are doing.
First of
all, I'd like to recognize Tineke and Marieke Gow of the Artisan Inn for
recently receiving a tourism achievement award, and this gets to a little bit of
what we're talking about. This was a restoration award, Mr. Speaker, if you look
at the Artisan Inn and the Twine Loft, the restaurant. It's a success story of
heritage buildings being redone to generate and stimulate the economy. It's
remarkable. Tineke Gow recently comes from Holland, and moved here to rural
Newfoundland. It's great to see people coming from other areas to help establish
and grow our local economy and do good things that draw people in.
This is
one thing I love about the District of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker, is the people who
have, through the years, built the infrastructure that we're finally seeing a
tourism boom like we haven't seen before, and this goes back to the '80s and
'90s where you're seeing significant investments in restoring heritage
buildings. Take, for instance, Trinity with the Ryan Premises, the
Lester-Garland House. These were shells of buildings. The Lester-Garland House
was actually demolished and they built it back up in a heritage manner, back to
its 1700s look. Now, they run a number of different things out of the
Lester-Garland House, including art exhibits in the summertime, as a museum. The
Trinity Historical Society operates their office out of there.
You see
the provincial historic sites within Trinity, such as the Ryan's store, the
museum, the Hiscock House – those are great things that we've invested in
through the years that people are coming to see. The Trinity Historical Society,
for example, made significant improvements to buildings in Trinity such as the
Cooperage, where you can go buy products that are handmade in the historic ways.
Also the
Green Family Forge, you go there now and you can walk in any day of the week and
you can see people actually blacksmithing there in a traditional coal-fired
forge. You know, it's certainly interesting to see when you go in and look at
them work at a product and, sometime later, it could be something as simple as a
door hook or something elaborate as a candelabra, and people are coming from
everywhere to see this sort of stuff.
You get
into another restoration that we've actually helped support through the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation is the Rosewood Suites.
We invested significant funding to help them restore an old inn and tavern
(inaudible). They had their official launch and grand opening last fall. We went
and looked there and it's beautiful, state-of-the- art accommodations, high-end
accommodations for anyone coming in who wants a little bit more comfortable
place to stay and certainly the good work that's been done there.
Looking
at Maudie's Tea Room – we talk about the film industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and there have been several filmed in the District of
Bonavista. You go back to Random Passage,
back in the early 2000s and they're focused on restoring some of their sites in
New Bonaventure.
From
there, you go into The Shipping News,
Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a –
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The Grand Seduction.
MR. KING:
The Tourism Minister is
giving me hints, but he should let me speak – he should stop heckling me and let
me speak because I'm making a point, Mr. Minister.
I'm
going to get to The Grand Seduction,
but I want to talk a little bit about
The Shipping News. The Shipping News is a big part of the early 2000s, kicking off the
film industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then you saw
The Grand Seduction where it was filmed in a number of different
areas such as New Bonaventure in the district, Keels, Red Cliff, a number of
different places. From there you see Joe's Place, which is still used today as a
tourism attraction in New Bonaventure.
Now, you
get into Maudie where a number of
different scenes where filmed throughout the district, but one from the
takeaways from that movie, the legacy that came from the movie, is Mesh's
general store in Keels. The producers of the film renovated the shop to look
like an antique store that you would see in Digby, Nova Scotia back in the 1920s
and '30s and they actually kept it like that.
Through
the initiative of Selby and Eileen Mesh of Keels, through support of TCII and
other agencies, they've been able to successfully open their Tea Room. Now,
they're open every Saturday and Sunday on the weekends right now, but certainly
they're excited to get going and promote that area on the Bonavista Bay side,
which is – normally you see a lot in Bonavista or on the Trinity Bay side, but
now they're expanding over to Keels.
King's
Cove is another area where you're seeing a lot of built culture, and local
artists have just purchased the old Anglican church and they're making it into a
studio. A similar thing done – I know the Leader of the Third Party mentioned
about English Harbour. Something similar was done in the mid-2000s in English
Harbour with the old Anglican church there and it's been turned into the English
Harbour Arts Centre. I was very fortunate this past summer to take in two shows
there. I swear, Mr. Speaker, that the acoustics in that restored church are
second to none. Sitting there listening to Vivaldi's Four Seasons, it's like
you're in a big opera hall in France or somewhere like that. It's amazing what
they can do.
You look
at Port Rexton – I'm just going around a number of districts because you don't
want to stick to just one area, but Port Rexton, they've done a number of
different things. Alicia, and Sonja Mills, of Port Rexton Brewing Company,
they've taken an old school, which was then turned into a community centre,
which was then turned into a brewery. They've been so successful telling the
story of Port Rexton and that school and drawing people to the area that they're
actually expanding – and we'll have some good news to bring on that on Friday,
Mr. Speaker. I'm looking forward to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry
and Innovation coming and making some good-news announcements supporting local
industry, supporting tourism, supporting economic growth in the District of
Bonavista, such as we have over the last four years.
But it
takes – it's not just government who does this, it's the community leaders, the
people like Dave and Kim Paddon of English Harbour who saw an old church, and
their committee, a group of like-minded individuals coming together to form an
arts centre. People like Selby and Eileen Mesh, taking an opportunity and
running with it. People like Donna Butt, who formed Rising Tide Theatre just
after – or excuse me, not formed, but brought the Rising Tide Theatre, Summer in
the Bight, just after the cod moratorium. And that's been successfully running
now for 26, 27 years. A couple of years ago they had their 25th anniversary, Mr.
Speaker.
You take
people like Jim Miller of Trinity who is chair of the Trinity Historical
Society, and the work that him and his committee have done. You take people like
Edith Samson, who's the executive director of the Coaker Foundation in Port
Union, and her board of directors – the amazing work that they've done in Port
Union to restore our heritage in Canada's only union-built town.
They
first restored the old Fishermen's Union Trading Company, now which is a bottle
production facility through PET Power. Then you see significant upgrades to the
factory where they have a museum, a conference centre, Mr. Speaker. They have
artists' residencies there. They have the cultural craft fair every year at that
location. It's a great facility. I even had my victory party there during the
2015 election. It's something I was proud to host a time for my supporters at a
historic site such as the factory in Port Union.
We're
also seeing restoration of the Union Electric building where the power company
used to be. As well, you're seeing a number of apartments being refurbished.
Right now I had an opportunity to meet with a couple of individuals who are
working hard to get an artist's residency in one of those apartment buildings.
So you would have your artists' studio there, the residency would last three
weeks. There are accommodations there. There is a place for them to work,
bringing in local people. I'm certainly excited, and I'm in the process of
writing a letter of support for that group.
Mr.
Speaker, you move on north up to Elliston, and the Leader of the Third Party
mentioned the root cellars. Well, you also look at our sealing heritage and what
they've been able to do with promoting the sealing industry and the Sealers
Memorial and the interpretation centre. Also what they've done is been able to –
what they've also been able to do is restore historic buildings.
In 1997,
Mr. Speaker – and I believe I told this story before in this hon. House – they
had a choice to turn off their streetlights because they couldn't pay the bills.
At that point they decided, no, we are going to make a difference. There were
actually two businesses in Elliston in 1997, and now there are countless
businesses because of the people, the leadership within that community, that
go-get-'em attitude that has seen that community revitalized. You see the Bird
Island Puffin Festival in the summer, you see Roots, Rants and Roars, which is
bringing in people from all over the world; world-class chefs, just not from
Newfoundland, just not from Canada but internationally as well. It's a success
story.
Champney's West, a small little community of less than a hundred people, they
have a heritage house. They have recreations there. Whether you're two years old
or 90 years old, everyone in that town pitches in to help out. I was at a
variety concert, their 27th variety concert this past Saturday night, and
certainly want to give them a shout out, the Fox Island Players at the annual
Champney's West variety concert. Their creativity is second to none, and that
ambition, that creativity, that vision for growth over –
MR. LETTO:
Like the
Matthew.
MR. KING:
Now, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs is heckling me, too, Mr. Speaker. You know, that's how good
things are in the District of Bonavista, is that you got people shouting out to
you, telling you the good things that you can talk about, and I'm not even on
Bonavista yet. I'm still making my way up the Route 230 and getting going.
Mr.
Speaker, their vision enabled them to go out and build an aquarium, and I tell
you the success of that aquarium is unbelievable.
Now, we
got to get to Bonavista. The Minister of Municipal Affairs wanted me to talk a
little bit about Bonavista. So I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the
Matthew and the good work. Back in
1997, I was there standing in the cove as a sea cadet when the Queen came
inspecting us at the War Memorial – but the 24th of June, 1997, Discovery Day,
and b'y what a day that was – when the people of Bonavista and that committee
got together and said we're going to put this initiative together to celebrate
the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's landing.
In Cape
Bonavista they said they didn't know if they would get a soul, but you couldn't
get a place to stand in Bonavista for those few days with the Queen, with the
landing of the Matthew and the replica
Matthew. Unfortunately, the
Matthew seen some better times, when
you have the Matthew legacy which is
working hard to refurbish the Matthew.
We've supported them through a number of different projects and grants as well
and visitation there.
You look
at the provincial historic sites in Bonavista; the lighthouse, the Mockbeggar
Plantation. They're getting record number of tourists, from talking to workers
there, and it's amazing to see. They're coming from everywhere. A lot of this
has to do with – it's a hip place to be now. Obviously, it's a hip place to be,
I live there, but it's a hip place to be even besides that because people want
to come out and experience life of rural Newfoundland because it's a young –
it's a lot of good things done by young people in the area.
Recently, on one of the local programs with Eastlink TV, they featured the
Bonavista puffin tours and a young couple there who are doing great work in boat
tours.
You also
have people like John Norman. Imagine now, someone in their early to mid-30s
taking a leap of faith and going out and restoring old buildings. And then, not
just restoring old buildings to sell them or rent them out but offering them to
businesses, nice restaurants, local artisans, craft people. There's a salt
factory there now; something I never thought I'd see when I left the province
back in 2004 and moved to Halifax. I come back and great things are happening.
It's a renaissance in the area.
You've
got a group like Bonavista Historic Townscape Foundation which has taken the
lead. If you go to Bonavista, one of the first things you notice is down at the
waterfront, the amount of work that has been done there, walking boardwalks. The
curbside is very beautiful going up – you know, that's on Campbell Street going
up to Church Street.
Then you
get on to Church Street, you see the Garrick Theatre which was – and the Garrick
Theatre and the old Chain Locker, which was pretty much down and out, closed
down, but the Bonavista Townscape Foundation took it on themselves, to take the
old Garrick Theatre, redo it in an historic fashion. Now every Saturday night
they have – in the summer, every Saturday night they have a musician come in or
a band and whatnot and it's a packed house. They show movies on Thursday, Friday
and Sunday.
You go
next door to the Garrick Annex, it's a beautiful little area. If you're
attending a show you could go have a martini or some other sort of cocktail or a
beer. Then upstairs where the old Chain Locker used to be is a conference room.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it's people like that, like the Bonavista Townscape Foundation, who
have taken our history and through the Heritage Foundation have done great work.
I could go on and on; 20 minutes talking about good things in the District of
Bonavista, you're just getting warmed up, and all the key players and people
that are doing good things there. I'm excited to see the growth. We're having
more new businesses opening up this summer. The economy is doing well.
Our
government is certainly supporting the leaders in the communities who are coming
to us asking for help to get things up and running, to help them expand. We've
seen that numerous times.
I really
can't count on one hand the number of times that the Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation has come to my district. We've made an
announcement that we're supporting a business like the Seaport Inn, which helped
them renovate the hotel to provide more accommodations to our area; like we'll
see on Friday with Port Rexton Brewery; with the Discovery Aspiring Geopark, and
that's another thing I want to talk about. We have a great group of people who
are working hard to get a UNESCO designation as a geo park in the District of
Bonavista based on our fossils in the area, and that would run from Port Union
all the way to King's Cove and that area, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we continue, I'm going
to beg some attention from the House. I have been trying to work on the term
“relevance.” It was interesting that, at the start of the reading of this bill,
I was actually going to compliment the minister and the Opposition because they
did a very good job, but it's continuing to spiral off in an amazing direction.
So, I
apologize, but I am going to interrupt because I don't think I can take any more
minutes of this. I'd ask the Members to be relevant to the bill, please, speak
to the matter of the Heritage Foundation.
I will
recognize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
Thank
you.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
sort of wondering the same thing, to be honest with you, but now I'm kind of
disappointed because I wanted to put in a couple of plugs for all of our
historic sites in Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I don't blame
the Member for Bonavista for being proud of his district from a tourism and
historic point of view because it absolutely is a beautiful part of our
province. I've visited many times. I go to Bonavista at least once a year for
sure in the summer, Elliston and those areas, and it's absolutely beautiful.
I do
also want to thank the Member for St. John's Centre for taking us on a virtual
tour all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. She never missed
too much. I was kind of disappointed nobody mentioned the Barbour Living
Heritage Village. That's where my roots are from, down that way, and that's also
a beautiful spot from a heritage point of view, I got to tell you.
Mr.
Speaker, to get relevant with the bill, I'm not going to speak long. I'm
supporting the bill, obviously, as is everybody I'm sure. Basically, we're only
mimicking what we did here the last time we were in the House as it related to
the Arts Council Act. We're just
applying that same process, if you will, to the Heritage Foundation of
Newfoundland and Labrador, basically as it relates to the
Financial Administration Act.
So, as
has been said, because it's tied to the
Financial Administration Act the same as would core governance of a
department, then there are a number of restrictions there in terms of the
inability to award multi-year funding, the inability to carry over a balance
from fiscal year to fiscal year and so on. In other words, no flexibility. The
work of this foundation is very important to our province as has been outlined,
and it's important that they have flexibility to do the good work that they're
doing, to be able to work with proponents who come forward, who would be looking
for assistance and so on in the restoration of built heritage projects, or as
the Member for St. John's Centre talked about the – what did she call it?
Intangible heritage projects, I think that was the terminology she used.
Basically, promoting our culture, promoting our heritage, promoting our way of
life, our sayings, our unique accents from all around the province, our stories,
our traditions and so on, promoting those things.
I heard
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, I believe it was, talking about an app
that's been developed, for example, for heritage as well to be able to look at
heritage sites and so on, virtually, through that app and so on, to improve the
experience that one would have. I can see that applying to sites all across the
province where you would do that and certainly for the younger generation, I'll
call it – not that I consider myself old, but the younger generation who are
into apps and stuff like that, which I'm really not a great deal, to be honest
with you. I still do things the old way in a lot of cases. But, certainly, for
the next generation coming up, the newer generation who are into this whole
concept of apps and virtual tours and all this good stuff, I think to be able to
develop that into the future, to be able to enhance the heritage experience that
one would have travelling throughout our province, I think that's a good thing
as well.
But in
order to be able to fund projects like this, perhaps fund them in stages,
perhaps working with different voluntary groups and organizations and so on,
partnerships, to be able to do those types of things, as well as built heritage
things, it's important that this organization have the flexibility – the
financial flexibility to meet the needs of the clientele, if you will. That's
really what's being done here.
Again,
as has already been said a couple of speakers ago, when we were sort of being
more relevant to the bill, it's important to note that even though we're
providing that flexibility, the books of this organization is still going to be
audited by the Auditor General. Apparently, that's being done now anyway but,
basically, it is cementing in legislation what is already happening in terms of
the Auditor General, which is important because we're talking about $300,000 or
$400,000 a year or whatever it is, a fair chunk of change being administered by
this organization, of the people's money, so it's important that all the checks
and balances be put in place to ensure that the money is distributed properly
and everything is done the way it should be done. So having the Auditor General,
on an annual basis, reviewing that financial information and documentation, I
think that's important and it provides the checks and balances that required
versus under the Financial Administration
Act, where it would be dealt with by government.
So, it
makes a whole lot of sense. As we said, it's been done in the past with other
Crown corporations and I see no reason why we wouldn't do it here, given the
flexibility it provides, given the financial oversight that continues to exist,
and as I said it makes a lot of sense for this organization so that they can
continue the great work that they do throughout our province in preserving, as
we said, not just our built heritage, which exists throughout the province, but
also our culture, our traditions, our stories and so on, which are so
invaluable.
When you
look at tourism here in this province, which continues to grow, I think that we
are doing very well in terms of tourism but I think we're only still scratching
the surface. We could do a lot more, and as more people get into the tourism
industry and develop products that consumers will want, I believe that our
tourism will continue to grow in leaps and bounds; but, let's make no mistake,
that while it's great to develop those products and so on, those attractions and
accommodations and so on, really when people are coming to Newfoundland and
Labrador they are coming for our heritage, for our culture primarily. That's the
experience that they're looking for.
They're
looking for that unique experience, that unique culture, that unique experience
that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this organization certainly
does a lot of good work in helping to provide that, and it's important that we
support them in any way we can, including legislative changes where required to
provide them, as we said, the flexibility, the ability to work with all
stakeholders and partners for the benefit of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation speaks now, he
will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciated all the commentary and support for the bill that's been put forward,
Bill 49, to amend the Historic Resources
Act. I thank the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for being so on
point. In particular, I had the opportunity to be in her district and visit
Sunny Cottage, which is a very important historic attraction, heritage
investment that the Heritage Foundation and the department had supported.
So these
are the types of things, though, sometimes, that funding requires and it doesn't
always get expended for a project in a fiscal year. To ensure that it's meeting
the criteria, that's why we're changing matters in this act.
I
appreciate the commentary by my parliamentary secretary who has attended
numerous functions on behalf of the department. I've had the pleasure, as well,
of being in Arnold's Cove for various resettlement events and the heritage week.
They have a great thing going on at Drake House, as well all throughout the
province. I appreciate the Member for St. John's Centre being very passionate
about the oral and intangible cultural heritage and aspects of our province,
it's very important, the great work that's being done throughout our province,
whether it would be built heritage or other aspects because that's very
important. As minister, I take great pride in the ability to be the heritage
minister.
When I
was 16, I started a museum myself, depicting our province's history and culture
on the Great Northern Peninsula and telling our stories and preserving that.
That was also in a heritage home itself.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Bonavista who certainly has a high
concentration of heritage resources, whether they're built or intangible, and
the great volunteer work that's being done by people throughout the District of
Bonavista. I always enjoy being there, whether it's in Port Union or Bonavista
itself.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, thank you for your contribution and
highlighting the Barbour Village – because that's something that I wrote down as
well. Last year, myself and the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels had toured
the facility and had recognized the leaky roof at the Alpheus Barbour village
and the impacts that were happening. Working with the Heritage Foundation, we
were able to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore that white,
magnificent property and that can generate revenue but also continue to make
sure that we don't lose such an iconic piece of our built heritage.
Working
in partnerships, working with community, working with organizations, working
with everybody in this House is how we make sure that we're continuing to ensure
that our historic resources are intact here in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank as well the staff at the Heritage Foundation; the
executive director, Jerry Dick; David Lough, who's the chair; as well as staff
at TCII who would administer the briefing. I know there were some questions. I
certainly can provide further detail, especially to the Member for St. John's
Centre on the Colonial Building because I'm very proud of the progress that we
have made on that historic structure.
We have
11 heritage properties throughout our province. We've already completed four of
the five tender packages and we're making significant progress when it comes to
making that property – that was our Legislature at one point – open again to the
public.
Mr.
Speaker, given the hour of the day and everything that's here, I'm going to take
my seat and I'm going to allow the House Leader to be able to –
MR. A. PARSONS:
You're finishing debate,
though, right?
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Yes, I'm finishing debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Yes.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to third reading – Committee and third.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The motion is that Bill 49 be now read a
second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.
(Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Historic Resources Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that this House do
now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Before I do adjourn, I would like to wish a
very happy birthday to our wonderful Page, Alden.
Happy birthday!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 1:30 o'clock.
Thank you.
On motion, the House at its rising
adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.