November 17, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 40
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
All rise.
Madam
Clerk, His Honour the Administrator has arrived.
CLERK (Barnes):
Admit His Honour the
Administrator.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
It is the request of His
Honour the Administrator that all present be seated.
CLERK:
Members of the House of
Assembly:
On
September 5, 2014, I received from the Honourable Ross Wiseman, Member for the
District of Trinity North, his letter of resignation as Speaker of this
Assembly. In accordance with the
Standing Orders, I advised all Members of the House of Assembly of the vacancy
in the Office of the Speaker.
I have a
proclamation from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:
TO:
Honourable J. Derek Green
Chief
Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal.
GREETING;
A
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS
by a letter of resignation addressed to the Clerk of the House of Assembly, the
Honourable Ross Wiseman, vacated the position of Speaker of the House of
Assembly on 5 September, 2014; and
WHEREAS
the House of Assembly will resume sitting at 1:30 o'clock in the Afternoon of 17
November, 2014 in accordance with the adjournment motion passed by the House of
Assembly on the 5 June, 2014; and
WHEREAS
it is not convenient to bring the Assembly together on the said day until the
Members of the House of Assembly have chosen a Speaker;
NOW
THEREFORE, I, the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, do authorize and direct you, the said Honourable Derek Green, to
signify to the Members of the said House of Assembly on the 17th day of
November, 2014 that it is my pleasure that they should choose some person to be
their Speaker and to present such person on that day for my approbation.
Your
Honour.
His
Honour the Administrator.
ADMINISTRATOR (Honourable J.
Derek Green):
Members of the House of Assembly, I have it in command of His Honour the
Lieutenant Governor to acquaint you that His Honour having been informed of the
vacancy in the Office of the Speaker of this Assembly and it being necessary
that a Speaker of this Assembly be chosen, it is His Honour's will that you, the
Members of the House of Assembly, do proceed to the election of a Speaker and
that you present that person here today for my approval.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
All rise.
[His
Honour the Administrator leaves the Chamber.]
CLERK:
Please be seated.
At the
close of nominations for the Office of Speaker at 4:30 p.m. Friday, November 14,
2014, one candidate put his name forward.
Accordingly, further to order 4 suborder (4) of the Standing Orders, I declare
Mr. Wade Verge, Member for the District of Lewisporte, elected as Speaker for
the remainder of the Forty-Seventh General Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
[The
Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition lead (drag) the new Speaker to
the Speaker's Chair. The Premier and
Leader of the Official Opposition help the new Speaker into his robe.]
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Well, ladies and
gentlemen of the House of Assembly, it is my turn just to have a few remarks.
This is quite the honour. I
want to thank the hon. Premier and the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition
for dragging me to the Chair.
I want
to start my remarks by welcoming all of you back to the House of Assembly and by
acknowledging some family and friends I have in the Speaker's gallery: my
daughter, Jenelle; my sister, Marion; two of my nieces, Sara and Michelle; and
two of my lifelong friends, Peter and Jim.
I want to thank you for joining me in this ceremony today.
We have
had a number of changes take place since the House of Assembly recessed on June
5, 2014. I would like to
congratulate the hon. Premier on his election and to wish him well in this very
important position. We also have a
new member with us today and he will be officially recognized and welcomed after
the approbation of the Speaker takes place.
I would
also like to take this opportunity to recognize the great work done during the
past three years by my predecessor, the Member for Trinity North and the current
Minister of Finance, as he occupied this Chair.
Thank you, Sir, for a most excellent job and also for willing to be my
mentor during the three years that I served as your Deputy Speaker.
I wish you well in your current portfolio and I look forward to listening
to you debate matters in this House.
Before too long, I fully expect you will be back to your original form and I
will find myself having to remind you that your time is up.
I was
first elected in October of 2007 and for seven years I have had the honour of
representing the people of Lewisporte district in this Legislature.
It is a job that I have taken very seriously and it is also a privilege
that I am thankful to have had and to have.
My
sincere thanks must first go to the people of my district who have placed their
faith in me to be their representative in this hon. House.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all members present
today. You have agreed to have me
serve as your Speaker. This is an
honour and a privilege that I willingly accept.
It is my desire to conduct the duties and the responsibilities of this
office in a fair, impartial, and competent manner.
This is
a position – some of you may know – that I have wanted and hoped for since first
being elected. The tradition of
dragging a Speaker to take his or her place in the Chair dates back to the
beginnings days of the British Parliamentary system in 1377.
In those days, the Speaker was the person who delivered messages from the
Commons, or the ordinary people, to the Monarch.
It was not a safe thing to be doing because if the King or Queen were
displeased with the news then the brunt of the Monarch's displeasure was felt by
the messenger: the Speaker.
Some of
the Speakers at that time met with a violent death when bringing unwanted news
to the Monarch. Therefore, being a
Speaker was a job that historically people had to be pressured into taking. In
this modern age I feel no danger in accepting this position, and to be truthful,
I did not have to be pressured into it.
In fact, I would have been willing to run to the Chair, because I am
honoured to be able to sit in this Chair and to preside over the proceedings
that will take place in this House.
Finally,
to my close friends and family, especially to my wife Lori, and to my two
children, Jenelle and Latoya, thank you for standing by me, thank you for your
support. You are the people I am
most indebted to. You are the people
who deserve my greatest thanks. I
thank you from the bottom of my heart.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Leader of the Official Opposition, that the Member for Port de Grave be
appointed Deputy Speaker for the remainder of the Forty-Seventh General
Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the Member
for Port de Grave be appointed as Deputy Speaker.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Leader of the Official Opposition, that the Member for Bonavista North be
appointed Deputy Chair of Committees for the remainder of the Forty-Seventh
General Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the Member
for Bonavista North be appointed as Deputy Chair of Committees.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the
Administrator has arrived.
MR. SPEAKER:
Admit His Honour the
Administrator.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
It is the wish of His Honour
the Administrator that all present be seated.
PREMIER DAVIS:
May it please Your Honour,
the House of Assembly, agreeable to Your Honour's command, have proceeded to the
choice of Speaker and have elected Wade Verge, Member for Lewisporte, to that
office, and by their direction I present him for approbation of Your Honour.
ADMINISTRATOR:
On behalf of Her Majesty, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, of my sense of your
efficiency and I do fully approve and confirm you as Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Your Honour having approved
the choice of this House in constituting me as their Speaker, it now becomes my
duty in the name of the representatives of Her Majesty's loyal subjects to ask
that I, as Speaker, may have full access to Your Honour's presence at all times.
ADMINISTRATOR:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor that your
words and actions will constantly receive from him the most favourable
construction.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:
All rise.
[His
Honour the Administrator leaves the Chamber.]
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Before
we begin Routine Proceedings, I would like to observe an old parliamentary
tradition. I have the pleasant task
of formally welcoming a new member who was duly elected in the by-election of
August 26, 2014. The new member is
Mr. Scott Reid, representing the District of St. George's – Stephenville East.
I have 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 hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present to you, Mr. Scott Reid, the Member for St. George's –
Stephenville East.
MR. SPEAKER:
Welcome to the House of
Assembly.
Let the
member take his seat.
[Applause.]
MR. SPEAKER:
Also today in the Speaker's
gallery I would like to make mention of Mr. Rex Hillier.
He is the Member-Elect for Conception Bay South.
He will be sworn in within the next week or so and, at that time, Mr.
Hillier will be taking his seat in the House of Assembly.
As well,
in the Speaker's gallery today we have Mrs. Patricia Davis, mother to the
Premier, and we have Robin and Lynn Ward.
Robin and Lynn Ward are the Premier's aunt and uncle and are visiting
from Ontario.
Welcome
to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, before we continue, I
would like to welcome back our returning Page Fatimah Rathore and to introduce
three new Pages: Ashley Bradley, Raylene Mackey, and Lauren Stokes.
Welcome
to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear members'
statements from the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune; the
Member for the District of Placentia – St. Mary's; the Member for the District
of St. George's – Stephenville East; the Member for the District of St. John's
Centre; the Member for the District of Carbonear – Harbour Grace; and the Member
for the District of Humber Valley.
The
Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to Alaina Joe for her
prestigious accomplishment of being crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador,
2015. We are extremely proud that
Alaina was recognized for the amazingly gifted individual she is, and we are
certainly looking forward to watching her shine during this exciting year ahead.
Alaina
rose to the challenge of meeting Miss Newfoundland and Labrador's rigorous
search for a community-minded, well-rounded young woman with integrity, strong
academic and leadership skills.
Remarkably, Alaina also received the Humanitarian and People's Choice Awards.
Today, I
would like to thank Alaina for being such a tremendous role model for youth, as
well as for her dedication to preserving the Mi'kmaq language and culture – her
talent submission of Amazing Grace in
Mi'kmaq was absolutely beautiful.
With her remarkable skills, talents, and giving nature, we will no doubt be
seeing many more accomplishments that will inspire youth in our Province,
particularly Aboriginal.
I ask
all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Alaina Joe, who at
such a young age shows the true beauty of the human spirit and what can be
achieved when you set your mind to achieving your goals.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia – St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to Donnie Gibbons of St.
Mary's who passed away on November 9.
Donnie's
fifteen-year battle with cancer reflected the spirit and determination that
characterized his lifelong entrepreneurship in St. Mary's.
His family business interests included retail services, school bus
transportation, construction, ambulance, and funeral services.
Mr. Speaker, Donnie Gibbons was an integral component of the social and
economic fabric of the St. Mary's Bay region, and he was a proud Newfoundlander
and Labradorian.
He
touched the lives of many, as was evidenced by the hundreds who attended his
funeral service and showed up to pay their respects both in St. John's and in
St. Mary's.
I ask
all members of this hon. House to join me in expressing appreciation for the
great contribution that he made to his community and to his Province, and to
express sincere condolences to his wife Jean, his son George, and daughters
Josephine and Donna.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. George's – Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to recognize the induction of eight outstanding women and men this past
October into the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Hall of Fame.
In particular, I would like to recognize Mr. Frank Berkshire of Doyles in
the District of St. George's – Stephenville East.
Frank
Berkshire moved to the Codroy Valley in 1966 to teach and immediately immersed
himself in the community. As an
educator, he took part in extracurricular activities beyond the classroom
including acting as a moderator for the Reach for the Top team, the drama group,
and the school's safe prom. Mr.
Berkshire introduced and coached high school hockey, basketball and softball for
both boys and girls. He established
the first Cub pack in the area, and served as a Scout leader for many years.
Others
inducted this year were: Cecilia Carroll of Torbay; Geoff Eaton of St. John's;
Bridget Leyte of Fogo; Thomas Maddox of King's Cove; William Mahoney of St.
John's; Rita Pennell of Trepassey, and Bruce Templeton of Outer Cove.
I ask
all members to join with me in recognizing the contributions made by these eight
people who have been inducted into the Volunteer Hall of Fame this year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 1 opened on Henry Street in 1928, the first in
Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1983
it moved to Blackmarch Road, now in the heart of St. John's Centre.
It
serves its members with pride, compassion and dedication, supporting veterans,
military personnel, their families and the broader community.
For instance, this week they will have a community flu clinic.
They hold bingos, dances and other events, including affordable social
activities for seniors, who often face isolation because of limited incomes.
The
amazing group of volunteers, led by President John Grennig, the executive and
Manger Todd Martin, include the women's group who cater for events.
They receive no government funding and raise money through their Poppy
Campaign to support veterans' badly needing help.
Branch 1 is also home to the Korea War vets and the Canadian Peace
Keepers, of which my own father was a proud member.
Last
Tuesday I attended Remembrance Day services at Branch 1.
Together we attended the Field of Honour, laid wreaths at the Legion
memorial, and paraded to the War Memorial ceremony.
Returning to Branch 1 for soup and sandwiches, we raised a glass to
honour and thank those who have given much to our country and to our Province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of all those
who have made the Jerry and Bobby Thoms Children's Library a tremendous success
in the Town of Carbonear.
The
children's library was established out of a vision by Tracey Vaughn-Evans, who
saw the need for a section in the town's library that would address children's
interests. Together, with help from
volunteers and donations from the service clubs and private citizens, especially
cousin David Coish, the library became a reality and was officially opened on
May 24, 2014.
The
library has seen actors, artists, and writers of all kinds volunteer their time
with the children. Through
storytelling and active interaction, the library has attracted children, and
yes, adults of all ages, and has become an integral part of the community.
The
library was named the Jerry and Bobby Thoms Children's Library in memory of
thirteen-year-old Jerry and eleven-year-old Bobby Thoms, brothers who were lost
at sea off the coast of Labrador in 1979.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Vaughn-Evans and
all volunteers and donors who have contributed to the success of the library.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Cormack on their 50th
Anniversary. The community of
Cormack started in 1946 as part of the Post War Settlement Program.
This was intended to assist the agricultural industry in the region and
to provide a settlement for returning war veterans.
Mr.
Speaker, 163 veterans were approved for the settlement in Cormack, and after
completing an agricultural training program, each was provided with a plot of
land to develop and a loan for a home, farm equipment, and livestock.
Cormack was incorporated on April 8, 1964, and a town council was
established to continue efforts for electricity and telephone services.
Mr.
Speaker, because of Cormack's unique history, the community continues a
tradition of hosting their Remembrance Day ceremonies on the first Sunday
following November 11. I was very
fortunate to have attended the ceremony yesterday to honour the servicemen and
women of our great country.
Ironically, yesterday there was one veteran from that original group in
attendance.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations
to the Town of Cormack on fifty years of incorporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, back on June 4, the day before this House adjourned, police officers
were targeted while on duty in the City of Moncton, New Brunswick.
Two RCMP
officers were injured, and three lost their lives: Constable David Ross,
Constable Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, and Constable Douglas James Larche.
I had the honour of attending their funeral services on behalf of the
government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – a day I will not soon
forget. Sadly and tragically, others
who have served to protect us here in Canada have also lost their lives in the
months since then.
On the
morning of October 20, a Warrant Officer with twenty-eight years of service in
the Canadian Forces, Patrice Vincent, was targeted in Quebec while walking in
uniform with a fellow Canadian Forces soldier.
He was deliberately attacked and murdered on a public street.
Two days
later, on the morning of October 22, Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a
twenty-four-year-old Canadian Forces Reservist, was targeted while on ceremonial
sentry duty at the Canadian National War Memorial in Ottawa.
He was approached from behind, while carrying out a most honourable
function in recognition of those who have paid the supreme sacrifice.
He, too, was targeted and another young life was lost.
In the
days that followed, and especially on November 11, Canadians in record numbers
stepped out of their homes with poppies over their hearts to visit war memorials
in their communities, to honour those soldiers and to remember the many, many
thousands of others who stepped forward and made grave sacrifices to protect us
all.
Mr.
Speaker, like all other Canadians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are feeling
a wide range of emotions as they reflect on these events: anger that anyone
would commit such a heinous act; grieve that precious lives have been taken from
those who love them; but also tremendous gratitude, pride and unshaken resolve
not to surrender our security and our freedom to those who threaten it.
Here in
this House of Assembly, we are elected collectively to represent Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. I believe it would
be fitting for all of us to rise on behalf of our Province in a moment of
silence to honour Warrant Officer Vincent, Corporal Cirillo, Constable Ross,
Constable Gevaudan, Constable Larche, and the multitude of others who have
served and sacrificed for the rights and privileges that we all enjoy.
I would
ask, Mr. Speaker, that after us as caucus leaders and my colleagues opposite
have spoken, you would lead us in marking a moment of silence in honour of those
that we remember here today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement today.
I believe it is very timely, given the week that we have just had in many
of the remembrance ceremonies that we have all attended I am sure.
The
tragic loss, as the Premier reminds us today, back in Moncton in June and indeed
in Quebec on October 20, and October 22 in Ottawa, these were all devastating
blows to our men and women in uniform.
In
Moncton, three RCMP officers were serving to protect the people of that city
when they lost their lives, and two other RCMP officers were injured.
RCMP Assistant Commissioner Roger Brown is from our Province.
He is based with the RCMP detachment in Codiac, New Brunswick, and worked
very closely with officers during that troubling event in the days in Moncton.
In
Quebec, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent of the Canadian Armed Forces lost his
life while wearing his uniform in public on October 20.
We remember the discussion that came out of this in the events after that
in Ottawa about whether these men and women should wear a uniform.
We all know that our men and women continue to wear the uniform because
of their courage and their bravery.
We are certainly thankful for that.
Just
after two days of the events in Quebec, we saw the horrific attack on our
Nation's capital which claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, an Armed
Forces reservist who was standing on guard at the National War Memorial in
Ottawa on October 22.
Today I
speak on behalf of the entire Opposition caucus when I express sympathies to the
families of these brave men. Earlier
this month I had the honour, as we all did, in visiting the displays of the
Armed Forces when the Afghanistan Memorial Vigil was on display here at
Confederation Building. We are all
humbled to hear the stories of the soldiers who gave their lives in the
Afghanistan mission, several who were from this Province.
I will
join, and I encourage the Speaker, as we will participate in a moment of silence
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for the advance copy of his statement.
I am very pleased to be able to stand and have the opportunity to respond
to his fine statement.
We all
have to remember that we need people whose job it is to protect us as
individuals and to protect our society; people whose jobs require them from time
to time to be in harm's way, as were all the individuals who have been named
here today by the Premier.
These
people, whom we depend on to do this work, also have an expectation of being
protected. When tragedy strikes and
lives are lost, we all also have a duty to remember their sacrifice.
We also have a duty always to do all we can to provide training and
resources to ensure to the best of our abilities the safety of our peace
officers and peacekeepers.
I hope
that the tragedies that have happened in our country over the past months will
be a time for us to reflect on what we have to put in place, both on a federal
level as well as here in our Province.
I look forward to our moment of silence in their memory.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
At the request of the
Premier, I would ask all members to stand and engage in a moment of silence.
[Moment
of silence.]
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you; you may be seated.
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
National Addictions Awareness Week is being recognized
from November 17 to 21 in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This week provides an opportunity for Canadians to learn more about
substance abuse prevention, to talk about treatment and recovery, and to bring
forward solutions for change.
Led nationally by the Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse, this year's theme places particular emphasis on youth substance abuse
prevention.
Drinking and taking drugs continue to be significant
issues for youth. Alcohol and
cannabis are the most common drugs of choice; however, prescription drugs are
also problematic. Collectively, as a
society, we must all do our part to learn more about prevention and ways we can
improve our existing treatment and recovery methods.
The recently formed Community Coalition for Mental Health in St. John's
is an outstanding example of a community coming together to raise awareness and
take action.
Mr. Speaker, our government invests approximately $100
million annually to provide mental health and addictions programs and services
in the Province through our regional health authorities.
A continuum of services for addiction prevention and
treatment is available and includes youth outreach workers, dedicated addictions
prevention staff, individual and group counselling, withdrawal management and
residential treatment.
In June of this year a new youth residential addictions
treatment centre opened in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Construction of a second adult residential addictions treatment centre in
Harbour Grace is ongoing with an anticipated opening in the spring of 2015.
This past spring, our government launched the
Understanding Changes Everything
campaign which is aimed at challenging, and ultimately changing, the way people
think and act toward individuals with a mental illness or addiction.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all hon. members and members
of the public to help create further awareness around this important issue.
We all have a role to play and as a government, we are committed to
enhancing services and supporting those in our Province who are living with
addictions.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. Substance abuse is a real
issue in this Province. Any time
there is an opportunity to bring awareness to mental health and addictions
issues, we should all take that opportunity.
The last line in the release says that government is
committed to enhancing services and supports.
Eight years ago, government committed to a provincial substance abuse
strategy to prevent and treat substance abuse.
It was not just a commitment on paper; it was a major undertaking by
government. There was a
Province-wide committee that had representatives from government, RNC, RCMP,
community stakeholders, and even individuals in recovery.
The strategy was written; the document was complete.
It took over two years to complete these consultations, do the work, and
write the document. The strategy was
needed then, but government walked away.
Government does not have a strategy to help deal with
these issues. Government says they
are committed to enhancing services.
Sadly, they walked away from the last significant effort to make some real
change in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. On October 15, over 1,000
people came together at Holy Heart Theatre for the Launch, an initiative I
organized by inviting over thirty-five groups and individuals concerned with the
serious state of mental health services in the Province.
They joined together to form the Community Coalition for Mental Health.
These are much-needed initiatives.
Although Understanding Changes Everything sounds like a great initiative,
raising dialogue is not enough. The
coalition is demanding that government call an all-party committee to take a
good hard look at the situation and to come up with guidelines for overhauling
our mental health and addiction services.
Children waiting one to two –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member her speaking time has expired.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon.
House to provide an update on the provincial-municipal fiscal framework.
In 2013, government committed to a comprehensive review of the fiscal
framework, and we remain on target to complete our work to inform Budget 2015.
The goal of this review is to examine the existing
provincial-municipal fiscal framework to identify options for efficient and
effective ways for services to be delivered, paid for, and shared in our
Province.
Mr. Speaker, as part of the review, government
committed to consulting with various stakeholder groups in the general public.
These consultations were designed to ensure that the view of
municipalities, local service districts, residents of unincorporated areas, and
all who utilize municipal services were indeed considered.
I am pleased to say that through partnering with both
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the Professional Municipal
Administrators, we are able to engage over 500 stakeholders in the municipal
sector, including local service district Chairs or committee members and rural
secretariat councils. In addition,
written and in-person input was received from the business sector, from
organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business,
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, the St. John's Board of Trade, and
Chambers of Commerce across the Province.
The department also received feedback from the public through online
submissions and a telephone survey.
As Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs,
I thank all stakeholders who participated in the consultations.
The in-depth feedback has been instrumental in assisting the department
in identifying efficient and effective ways for sustaining service delivery,
recognizing our vast geography. The
department also conducted a jurisdictional review of other provinces and
territories to obtain information about their provincial-municipal fiscal
relationships and certainly their governance structures.
We have taken all that information gathered, as well as
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador's recent recommendation document, and
are now turning our attention to a series of potential changes that will begin
in 2015 to achieve the core objective of this review.
Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks we will issue a
comprehensive “What We Heard Document” from the consultation process and it will
be posted on our department's Web site.
We have made great progress with this review and by
continuing to work together, I am confident that we will be able to produce a
provincial-municipal fiscal framework that will improve communities and regions
in this Province and enhance sustainability into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. I see here that the
minister said that we started the commitment in 2013.
Actually, when you made the commitment it was 2008, one year after the
hospital in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.
We see here all the municipalities are mainly volunteers, so we need to
help with the consultation because these volunteers need help in their
communities.
MNL has submitted its final report of what is the plan
to the government, Mr. Speaker. They
are hoping for a response and they are hoping to have something in place by
2015.
The MNL document was a decision for a fiscal framework
to bring to Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. I
am asking the government now that after six years, after making these
commitments, let's help these volunteers, let's help the communities, let's help
rural Newfoundland to remain viable, and let's help them all work together so we
can say that we as parliamentarians are doing something for rural Newfoundland
and doing something for municipalities and offer this fiscal framework that was
committed back in
2008.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I have to remind government, since 1973 municipalities have been looking
at a new fiscal framework and it is yet to be delivered.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the occasion to attend the Municipalities NL conference in Corner
Brook in early October, where MNL presented its
What's the Plan funding document containing suggestions to
government. I hope government has
taken these suggestions in. We can
only hope that whatever government arranges with municipalities it keeps the
taxpayer insulated from any possible increase to their tax rates.
We hope that collectively this message is what government has heard the
most, and that government acts on the recommendations of that report.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Welcome
and congratulations on your new post, and of course, the new Pages that we have
here in the House of Assembly.
Now to
the questions; Mr. Speaker, last January the power went out throughout our
Province. Most people referred to it
as a crisis. In response, government
approved $120 million for a generator at Holyrood.
I ask
the Premier: With winter fast approaching, is this generator ready, and what
will people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect?
Will they expect to have their power on this winter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, as
well, congratulate you and the Pages who have now been assigned here today, and
I thank the hon. member opposite for his question.
I can
assure the member opposite, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
that Nalcor are working towards taking all the steps and efforts to ensure that
a reliable supply of power is provided for the coming winter season.
We know winters can be quite harsh in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I
can assure you that we intend, and we will hold them accountable, to ensure they
get the work done that needs to be done to ensure that power supply is available
throughout the winter season, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier mentioned a reliable source of power, when already Nalcor has admitted
that the schedule for the Holyrood generator is under pressure and they will not
know until December when it will be ready to generate power.
The Liberty report, through the Public Utilities Board, reported that
power outages said that the new generating capacity should be the first priority
and ready for December 1, just two weeks away.
I ask
the Premier: Will they meet the deadline or not, and why has this project been
delayed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the supply of
power is very important to the people of the Province, especially when we have
harsh conditions that we see in the wintertime.
Everyone deserves to have a reliable service throughout the entire
Province, throughout the Island portion of the Province, and especially
throughout Labrador where winters can be very difficult and very challenging at
the best of times.
We
understand, and we know that Nalcor are having challenges in meeting their
deadlines. We are assured they are
working hard to ensure they have all the equipment, supplies, opportunity, and
the system in place to provide that reliable service throughout the winter, Mr.
Speaker, and I expect nothing less from Nalcor, that they be prepared for this
coming winter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we
expect nothing less. We are two
weeks away from what the Liberty report suggested would be the deadline,
December 1.
Will the
Premier let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know when this generator
will be ready?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position today to get an exact final date because these projects are large and
complex and they have so many factors that can impact them.
I am
aware of the date the member opposite is referring to and the importance that we
have this service in place and ready for this winter.
I am assured by senior officials at Nalcor that they are working very
hard to meet the expectations and requirement before the onset of winter in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
As I
have said already, and I will say again, we will hold them accountable.
We expect a reliable service provided by Nalcor, and they assure us they
are working to make sure they can provide that service, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier already said he is working closely with Nalcor.
He has already said they are going to keep Nalcor accountable; yet, here
we are just two weeks away from December 1 and the Premier cannot answer that
one question: When will the generator be ready?
The
reason for the new generator was to meet peak energy demands and avoid another
crisis like last January. It now
seems likely that this generator will not be ready on time.
I ask
the Premier: What is your back-up plan to keep the power on in this Province if
this generator is not ready?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, the entire
Province is well aware of the issues of last January.
I think it is important for the people of the Province to know their
government, and no doubt the Opposition as well, have full expectation that work
will be done by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to ensure they deliver the power
throughout the winter.
The
member opposite well knows – he has had a briefing from Nalcor and Newfoundland
Hydro, he has had all the details of winter readiness.
I think he would agree that there has been a tremendous amount of work
and effort done by the company, Mr. Speaker.
There has been $260 million invested in terms of asset management for
aging infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, a
tremendous amount of work has been done.
There
was a planned date of December 7 for the turbine.
There has been some scheduled risk with parts, Mr. Speaker, but we will
hold them accountable like everybody else in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
understand that our power system was on alert just last weekend.
This is because Holyrood had 190 megawatts of power out of service, Bay
D'Espoir had 153 megawatts out of service, and Stephenville had 50 megawatts out
of service. According to Hydro's Web
site, the current demand on the power system is 1214 megawatts.
It is nearly reaching capacity.
I ask
the Premier: Can you confirm that the system was on alert, and should the people
of the Province be preparing for more rotating power outages in the near future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro have been in the power business for well over fifty years.
We have considerable generation assets, Mr. Speaker.
They are old, and we have 15,000 kilometres of transmission line in this
Province. They do their very best to
keep this functioning and to ensure that we have reliability, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it was last weekend we had winds of up to 150 kilometres in this Province.
I think anytime it is important to put that system on alert.
We do know, Mr. Speaker, from reports of winter readiness, a tremendous
amount of work has been done and investments have been made to get those
generation assets up and ready for the winter season.
They have assured us that they will be ready, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
we have high expectations, without question, that they will be ready, and will
be ready to deliver reliable power to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier, or the Minister of Natural Resources: Was there an alert last
weekend by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I would have to
check for sure to see if there was an alert, and if there is I have no problem
reporting that.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suspect due diligence by these companies,
certainly from experiences last year and the expectations of the people of the
Province, the expectations of all the work that has gone on from Liberty, to the
PUB, to their internal work, to their external work with Newfoundland Power and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that there are lessons that have been learned,
Mr. Speaker, and if there are issues, it is important to let the people of the
Province know what it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At least
thirty-five children have died while under the Province's care since 2009.
However, of the initial twenty-six deaths reported in the media, the
Child and Youth Advocate only knew of six.
The Advocate has requested legislative changes to make reporting
mandatory.
I ask
the Premier: Will you bring forward those legislative changes in this session of
the House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, nobody, who has
not experienced such a tragedy, can imagine what it would be like to experience
the loss of a child in their family or a close loved one.
They are very, very important matters, Mr. Speaker, and need to be dealt
with very seriously.
In the
past year we have brought forward, and now have in operation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
– a new Child Death Review Committee, which is made up of a panel of experts who
review essentially all deaths of children and youth in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I want to see a
circumstance where both the Child and Youth Advocate and the Child Death Review
Committee can work together in partnership, not work against each other.
I have contacted the Child and Youth Advocate and I have invited her to
come to a Cabinet meeting on her next opportunity to have a full discussion
about what she has been proposing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the findings in all of the Advocate's investigative reports has been about the
high turnover in the department and the fact that she is claiming this is a
factor of the children falling through the cracks.
There have been five ministers in CYFS, Child, Youth and Family Services,
in five years, four in the last fourteen months.
I ask
the Premier: Why is the department's leadership constantly changing with such a
high turnover as has been cited by the Advocate as a factor in children falling
through the cracks?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I tell you there is no correlation between the turnover and changes in
ministerial positions versus in staffing.
There are a high number of staff, and very hard-working staff in the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.
I know from my own experiences, in working side by side with child
protection workers, it can be some of the most challenging and difficult work
that a social worker can endure during their career.
I am
pleased to say there are some child protection workers who have many years'
experience working in the department, and what existed prior to the department
through the delivery – through health care services.
Mr. Speaker, we have a combination of new, we have a combination of those
who have several years of experience, and we also have people who have great
experience working in the Child, Youth and Family Services department.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do very good work for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, in August, an
access to information request by the media revealed twenty-six children and
youth died while under this Province's care since 2009.
Regrettably, six weeks later, government discovered it missed seven
children and two more had died.
I ask
the Premier: How did his government overlook those seven child deaths?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, it was through a custom query.
Those twenty-six were arrived at through a tedious process with staff
going over and reviewing files, understanding, of course, that some of those
files would have lied with the regional health authorities, as the transitioning
had not occurred throughout that time where it was ongoing throughout.
It was only after that, through a custom query, where we called in
special IT support, that we were able to find the others.
When I
say able to find the others, Mr. Speaker, it is important to know these were not
unknown deaths. These were deaths
that were very well known by front staff, as well as those involved, as well as
all those in the department. It was
through that custom query we were able to find those additional numbers.
It is important to know that these were not unknown deaths whatsoever.
It was the tool we used to pick up those numbers from the dataset we had.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Advocate did
not know that information.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister indicated that these seven additional child deaths were
discovered after a senior staff member requested a customized database search of
records.
I ask
the minister: How confident should the public be in the care of children by this
government when it takes a database search to uncover how many children have
died?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, I have every
confidence in our staff. As I had
said, we were the ones, and as the member actually alluded to, we were the ones
who initiated that second search. We
wanted to make sure – I had discussions with staff, I wanted to make sure that
the number we put forward was the most accurate and true number.
It was through that custom query, as I had said that we followed up, that
we provided that additional information.
When we
were made aware of it, we let the Child and Youth Advocate know right away.
This is not anything about politics, it is about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
– getting the most possible,
most accurate information out. It is
a very serious topic, one that I take very personally and seriously as minister,
and I want to make sure any information that comes from our department is not
only accurate, but also shared with the Child and Youth Advocate, and that is
exactly what we did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, the new 911
system is flawed and a downgrade for the twelve fire departments in the Western
Region. Government today changed
implementation to part of the 911 system and allowed the RNC to continue
services without extra fees to these twelve municipalities.
I ask
Minister Manning: By these changes you are admitting the system is flawed; will
you do a complete review of the 911 system before downloading on volunteer
firefighters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the member opposite for his question, because the 911 is very important to this
government. It was only last May
that we brought in legislation, Mr. Speaker, that extended the coverage of 911
across the entire Province. So
whether you live in a very small community in my district, like Lamaline, or a
very large community, like Corner Brook or St. John's, we now provide the
service all across the Province, and right up into Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite references a particularly unique area, with respect to how the
service was previously delivered on the West Coast in the Corner Brook region.
He is correct. The minister
was out in the area Friday and met with municipalities and those who had
concerns out there. I am pleased to
say, as the Premier has said repeatedly, that we are here to listen.
She has
listened to the concerns. She made
an announcement today that we will provide the same kind of coverage for that
area of the Province as they have been accustomed to for a transition period,
Mr. Speaker, recognizing this is an important issue for all of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I will let the minister know,
the meeting was Thursday. Corner
Brook will have full dispatch. So
Corner Brook is not affected, they will have full dispatch.
Thank God for by-elections, I say, if not this would not be changed, and
thank God that the volunteer firefighters stood up to this government again.
Mr.
Speaker, Minister Manning stated that the 911 system cannot dispatch for the 270
fire departments. She stated the
cost is too high.
I ask
Minister Manning: Will you table the cost analysis to confirm this decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An
interesting request coming from the member opposite, considering that every day
in the media they are criticizing government for spending on important
initiatives.
Most
recently, we announced a move forward with a new courthouse in St. John's as
part of consolidation of services.
It is going to save the taxpayers money, and we are criticized for that.
Now today they are here, Mr. Speaker, looking for us to spend more money.
I say to
the member opposite, what we have done is the first in Newfoundland and Labrador
to extend 911 service across the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador –
a bold move, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
An important initiative that
is applauded and celebrated by all of these emergency organizations that had
previously no access, and no ability to access such a service.
I say to
the member opposite, we will continue to move forward with the implementation
plan that we have identified. The
only change is that the minister heard some concerns on Thursday – and I thank
you for correcting me. She heard the
concerns and she has responded appropriately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I hope Minister
Manning soon gets elected. At least
she will know that the cost for this 911 will be seventy-five cents, Minister,
per phone in the Province. That is
what is paying for this, not the government.
It is a fee to the people.
Mr.
Speaker, Minister Manning stated in a public meeting that people are happy with
the 911 system. The minister just
stated it himself again. When a call
is made to 911 for a fire emergency, you are forwarded to a beeper.
There is no confirmation that the call was received and no confirmation
that responders will be responding.
I ask
the minister: How can people have confidence in the system when volunteer
firefighters do not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
say to the member opposite, it is not entirely accurate the picture he is
painting there today. First of all,
as the minister has demonstrated, this is a new service.
It is something brand new for many of us who do not have the luxury of
living in the urban centres like Corner Brook or St. John's, Mr. Speaker, and I
represent one of those areas. This
is brand new for residents in my district and many parts of the Province, and it
is important.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister has just demonstrated, as we work through this process
if there are bugs or flaws that we need to iron out, then we will work through
it. Clearly, the legislation that we
have introduced and was passed by this House of Assembly is very important and
very progressive. Contrary to the
member opposite, it is being well received throughout the entire Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: If the 911 system is so good, why is Vince MacKenzie, the president of
the fire association of Newfoundland and Labrador, telling the people in his
area who have dispatch and others, do not call 911, it is a delay?
I ask the minister to respond to that.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak
for Mr. MacKenzie. I encourage the
member to reach out to Mr. MacKenzie and he can ask him himself.
What I
can remind the member, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not the provincial
government's responsibility to provide dispatch services.
There are obligations in the Municipalities Act that rests within
municipalities and rests with various emergency providers.
The 911
service that we are providing, Mr. Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Members opposite had their
opportunity to do that for ten or a dozen years and did nothing with it.
We brought this legislation forward, Mr. Speaker, because it is good
legislation. We will continue to
support the legislation.
If there
are changes required in the future then we will certainly consider that, as the
minister has demonstrated very clearly today by listening to the people of
Corner Brook who raised concerns and she has made a change in a transition
process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Justice acknowledges family violence affects most families in this Province, and
has committed to ensuring that all the necessary resources are put forward to
ensure that we have the best possible response.
I ask
the Minister of Justice: Seeing as how you recognize this, will you reinvest the
$1 per person per year to reinstate the Family Violence Intervention Court?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite raised a very important matter on family violence, which plagues
families in communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador – unfortunately
plagues, and causes troubles and difficulties for parents, children, and
families throughout our Province.
I am
very interested in the Family Violence Intervention Court.
I have seen the work that they have done in the past, and through my own
lifetime have had such experiences with such matters.
I have
asked the minister, and work is underway, to review the Family Violence
Intervention Court – not to reinstate what previously had existed, but to look
at it from a point of view of are we able to provide these services throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, to rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, to other
places outside of the greater St. John's area, just like areas the member
opposite represents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, when the Premier
was asked in the leadership debate about the Family Violence Intervention Court,
both him and the Deputy Premier stated that the only drawback was that it was
only available in St. John's. The
Premier states that again here today.
So I ask
the Premier: If it was so worthwhile, why did you vote to eliminate it, rather
than expand it back then?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak to that because the member opposite is fully aware that I was the minister
at the time that the decision was made to eliminate the Family Violence
Intervention Court – and I have been very clear on record, probably 100 times in
this House; Hansard will show. The
reason government chose to eliminate the Family Violence Intervention Court was
a budgetary decision. I have been
clear to members of the Opposition.
I have been clear to the Member for St. John's Centre.
Repeatedly, the decision was never made because we did not see any value in the
Family Violence Intervention Court.
Check Hansard, over and over I have been clear upon that, but government had to
make tough financial decisions, and they are not easy.
If you want to be in leadership, you have to make decisions, and that was
one of the decisions we had to make as part of a budgetary process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, while Minister
Manning was a Review Commissioner with the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Review Division none of the nineteen reviews assigned to her were
completed within the required sixty days.
Although Minister Manning and the Premier say this is not an uncommon
problem, that does nothing to help the injured workers affected.
I ask
the Minister of Service NL: Have these nineteen outstanding cases now been dealt
with? If not, when will this
important work be completed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you the work to complete those cases is underway by the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Review Division.
I can also point out to the member opposite –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
– we recognize that there are
issues and backlogs in the review division.
I know that just a few short years ago there was a larger backlog.
When I
was Minister of Service NL and Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Commission, I took steps to deal with that backlog.
There is a significant shorter backlog now than there was just a few
short years ago.
The
discussions that I have had with the Chief Commissioner, as well as with the
minister, is that we reflect on the fact that we have to do a better job and we
have to make more improvements to shorten this wait-list even further and that
work is underway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
answer that we are working on it is of little comfort to the injured workers
requiring to have their cases heard.
Mr.
Speaker, while the unelected minister's outstanding caseload is disturbing
enough, we are told that there is in fact 150 cases outstanding at the workers'
comp review division.
I ask
the minister: How do you plan to address the systemic issues responsible for
these unacceptable delays?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I am not sure if the member
opposite got my last answer, Mr. Speaker, because I think addressed some of
that, but I will be pleased to address it again.
We have
already taken steps to shorten the wait-list.
There are some, what I would see as systemic issues in the review
division of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
Mr. Speaker, these reviews are important to injured workers.
Now, I get that, and we get that as a government.
We want to make sure that we can provide the best services possible to
injured workers; we are looking through reviews of their files.
That is why I have instructed the Minister of Service NL, and I have had
a conversation with the Chief Review Commissioner, that they work together and
bring forward recommendations to government so that we can review what the
options are available, and we can take steps to correct those backlogs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North, time for a quick question.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, two national
reports on early childhood education show that Newfoundland and Labrador remains
mired at the bottom among Canada's provinces when it comes to the provision of
child care.
I ask
the minister responsible: When is his government going to get its act together
and actually make early childhood education programs accessible for working
families in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier, for a
quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, very recently,
two reports that were released in relation to early childhood education – and I
would like to point out if you read those reports, you look at those reports,
and also talk to people in the industry, that the steps that we have taken as a
government have in large part improved the opportunity for early childhood
education, and will improve the education of children in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The
changes we have made in the department, by moving early childhood education into
the Department of Education, has been heralded by people in the industry as a
great move by this government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier has announced the date of the health summit he is planning as a way to
reduce health care spending. He also
says he wants people to tell him what their concerns and issues are.
In a town hall on health care that I held recently in my district, I
heard many issues presented by the people who attended.
So, in
their name, I ask the Premier: Will his summit deal with the serious issue of
long wait times for specialists in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I am quite
pleased that the Minister of Health has begun the process – and the process was
recently announced to do a consultative process with the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, because we have to focus and provide the best health care possible
to the people of the Province.
We
invest significantly in health care; 39, almost 40 per cent of our entire budget
is invested in caring for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
but we are not going to rest there.
Despite putting large amounts of money, it is not satisfactory to us, because we
need to find the best way to deliver the best services for the people.
We have done good work, Mr. Speaker.
We have some of the shortest wait times right now in many areas.
The shortest wait times in Canada for hip and knee replacement, one of
the biggest demands in services, and we have other wait times, Mr. Speaker, that
are the best in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I point
out to the Premier, the issue that I raise, what the people raise, is the issue
around specialists, and he is not hearing that issue.
I ask
him: Will his summit deal with the issues of the almost 50,000 people with
diabetes in this Province, issues such as lack of coverage for diabetic strips
or universal coverage for pumps?
Listen to the issue, Mr. Premier.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we have more doctors working in Newfoundland and Labrador today than
ever before in the history of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We have the highest
percentage of nurses per capita right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
It is specialists who do hip
and knee replacements, Mr. Speaker.
It is specialists who are cardiologists, who are offering leading programs in
North America right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have the shortest wait times in cardiac catheter surgeries and
procedures. We have the shortest
wait times. We have done good work,
Mr. Speaker, to improve wait times in emergency rooms.
This
summit that we are doing, that this government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is going
to work hard to make better the health care services for the people of the
Province throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, seniors across
the Province living on GIS and OAS are calling my office in desperation saying
after paying rent and utilities many have only $150 or less for food,
transportation, and clothing, and that is per month.
They have nowhere else to go.
They are being crushed by this economy.
This is their reality.
I ask
the minister, will he immediately develop a special rental assistance program
for seniors that includes more rent supplements?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this is another area where we continue to focus and do good work.
We have made great gains in poverty reduction in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since 2006, I think it is
$1 billion that we have invested in poverty reduction in this Province.
As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we have fewer people relying on social
programs than ever before. We are
taking steps.
When
people want to transition from social programs to working, to gain gainful
employment, we have done programs such as extending their health benefits.
They can continue to receive those benefits, medications and those types
of benefits, while they transition into the workplace.
We have taken great steps to improve that.
Again, like many other things that we do as a government –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre, time for a quick question.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: Why will he not make rent supplements portable so seniors can choose
where they want and need to live?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
apologize for running over the last time, but I was getting to rent supplements
and the great work that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing does.
We make more investments in rent supplements for people in the Province,
particularly seniors. Quite often
seniors benefit from rent supplements that are available.
We have more rent supplements than we ever had before, Mr. Speaker.
As I was
saying to the member opposite, we realize that we have to continue to find
better ways to deliver services to the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. They deserve nothing
less than that from us. Our
government over here, Mr. Speaker, is going to continue to work day in, day out
to provide the best services possible for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time
for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech from His Honour the
Lieutenant Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee
which reads as follows:
To His
Honour the Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Frank Fagan, CM, ONL, CMA.
May it
please Your Honour: We, the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative
Session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious Speech which Your
Honour has addressed to this House.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Port de Grave, that the report be adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the report be
received?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I am assuming we
are moving into notices of motion.
The report is being tabled now but will be spoken to a little later.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Premier, that the debate be deferred.
MR. SPEAKER:
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, debate deferred.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling seventeen
Orders in Council relating to funding of precommitments for the 2015-2016 to the
2020-2021 fiscal years.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991, Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance.
MR. WISEMAN:
I give notice that I will ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration
Act, No 3, Bill 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chartered
Professional Accountants And Public Accountants, Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Hydro
Corporation Act, 2007, Bill 28.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act, Bill 29.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of Motion.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
the Province's Child and Youth Advocate has requested that government introduce
legislation for mandatory and immediate reporting of all government departments
and agencies of the death of and critical incidents involving children and
youth; and
WHEREAS
government has not taken a lead in notifying the advocates office of such
incidents, and instead the advocate has relied on calls from the public and the
media to be made aware of cases needing her involvement; and
WHEREAS
legislating a direct reporting mechanism from all departments and agencies to
the advocate would help improve outcomes for all those involved, as would it
improve outcomes for other children and youth receiving services; and
WHEREAS
as a direct result of earlier intervention in specific cases where a death or a
critical incident has occurred, or indirectly, systemic issues can be more
readily identified and addressed.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to
immediately introduce legislation for the mandatory and immediate reporting of
all government departments and agencies of the deaths of and critical incidents
involving children and youth.
This
motion is seconded by the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 63, the motion just read by the Leader of the Opposition shall be
the private member's resolution to be debated on Wednesday of this week.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is broadly
available so people have the right to be able to access the Internet in order to
exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion and other
fundamental human rights; and
WHEREAS
the Town of Goose Cove still remains without broadband services; and
WHEREAS
residents rely on Internet services for education, business, communication and
social activity; and
WHEREAS
wireless and wired technologies exist to provide broadband service to rural
communities to replace slower dial-up service;
We the
undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to assist
providers to ensure the Town of Goose Cove is in receipt of broadband Internet
services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a variety of outlets which we could look at, but by not
acting we are eliminating a town, a municipality.
We are really taking away the services a municipality in the Province can
be offering when it comes to things like high-speed Internet.
The
municipality of Goose Cove would have significant opportunity to expand services
and better communicate with its residents.
We look at that the federal government has a connecting broadband program
with $305 million. We have a Rural
Broadband Initiative, and looking at partnering to find solutions, because there
are so many communities, upwards of 200 in the Province that still do not have
access to broadband Internet. There
are seven in my very own district that do not have access to broadband Internet.
It is just unacceptable in this day and age not to have access to
broadband Internet.
There
are a variety of wired, wireless, and other technologies that can be used to
provide, and we should have universal broadband coverage throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador. It can be done, and it
does not have to be an expensive form to cover these solutions.
We need to work with providers, work with the municipalities to make sure
we overcome these barriers right now.
We can have a smarter economy when we open up the knowledge-based economy
and providing broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
most communities in the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair do not have
adequate broadband service; and
WHEREAS
residents, businesses, students, nurses, and teachers rely heavily on the
Internet to conduct their work and cannot afford to wait until 2016 to access a
potential plan in partnership with the Muskrat Falls development; and
WHEREAS
there are a number of world-class tourism sites in the region, including the
UNESCO site at Red Bay, Battle Harbour Historic Site, and the Mealy Mountains
National Park;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the
appropriate agencies to provide adequate broadband service to the communities
along the Labrador Coast.
As in
duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague just talked about the importance of Internet access.
I want to continue to talk about that.
I have twenty-two communities in my district.
Some of them will tell you they have broadband service.
It is not sufficient broadband.
They are closed to sales; they are maxed out.
I have spent the last number of months having meetings with provincial
departments, with ACOA, and with Bell Aliant, the service provider, wondering
how we can come to some acceptable resolution with this.
Mr.
Speaker, we are living in a more advancing technological age where people are
being forced to use the Internet for everything.
I have many fisher people in my area.
They now have to do their licences in an online system.
We have businesses that are paying for their own boosters because the
Interac is too slow for them to use business.
We have hotel owners who are losing business because the Internet is too
slow.
We will
be receiving some improvement in the near future is my understanding in the
Labrador Straits. That leaves me
very concerned about Southeast Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
If we are going to give everybody a fair fighting chance in this Province
it has to be students who need dependable, reliable access to broadband service
to be able to carry out their work.
Working professionals, I hear from on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, who are
asking for improvements.
Right
now we have a multi-billion dollar mega industrial project in our backyard and
my office every single day hears from people who cannot use Internet in their
own home to apply for jobs. The only
way that you can get a job there is to be able to apply online.
These are just some of their very concerns.
I could go on and on, vehicle renewal and things like that.
I will
continue to call upon government to look at these twenty-two communities,
especially the six or eight in the Southeast, and to work with the federal
government and the service provider to come to an acceptable resolution to bring
us into the twenty-first century, like many other places in the Province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a comprehensive approach to
domestic violence in a court setting that fully understood and dealt with
complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS
domestic violence continues to be one of the most serious issues facing our
Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic violence is great both
economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS
the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by all aspects
of the justice system including the police, the courts, prosecutors, defense
counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well as victims, offenders,
community agencies, and women's groups; and
WHEREAS
the recidivism rate for offenders going through the court was 10 per cent,
compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS
the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget of the
Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family Violence Intervention
Court.
As in
duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, these petitions come into our office daily.
People from all over the Province are calling for the reinstatement of
the Family Violence Intervention Court.
Today it was very interesting to hear the former Minister of Justice say
it was a budgetary decision. It was
not entirely a budgetary decision when he gave other excuses for cancelling the
court.
Mr.
Speaker, I have contacted the Minister of Justice.
I have contacted the previous Premier with a plan on how the court can be
expanded to serve Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
This plan takes into account already existing infrastructure.
It would take very little money.
As a matter of fact, it is cost efficient.
To have a higher recidivism rate and to incarcerate offenders costs way
more than having a court that costs only $520,000 in St. John's, and to expand
the court once again using existing infrastructure.
It would require very few new hires.
As a matter of fact, all it would require is some extra training for
Crown Prosecutors, for Legal Aid lawyers, for a judge in each of those
locations.
The solution is attainable, the solution is affordable, and
the cost-benefit analysis is absolutely undeniable.
The Premier, the Minister of Justice continues to get letters from
women's groups around the Province who have expertise in this area, and to
ignore those calls, Mr.
Speaker, is unconscionable at this point in our history.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today
with a petition on behalf of the residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador
on the hospital in Corner Brook.
WHEREAS
we wish to raise the concerns regarding the recent delay on the construction of
the new hospital in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the government to commit to the planning and construction of
the new hospital in Corner Brook as previously committed to and in a timely
manner as originally announced without further delay or changes.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, we have seen here today how the 911 system was changed
because of a by-election. I agree
that this system is flawed. We have a
by-election out in Humber East right now and we need commitments from this
government. We need commitments.
As we
know now, Mr. Speaker, they are going to put in the units for a PET scanner but
they are not committing to PET scanner services in the new hospital.
I stand to be corrected here.
I was speaking to the health care committee and I could not find any
documentation to show that there is a full commitment to offer PET scanning
services in the new hospital in Corner Brook.
Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Health now to say no, we will
offer those PET scanning services.
I am
under the understanding, Mr. Speaker, that now, in some of the design stages,
there is some confusion with some radiologists and the radiology department in
there. We had to drag it out of this
government.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to let the people know, and anybody who has seen the
interview by the former Premier, the former Member for Humber East, Tom
Marshall, who just announced – I said it in this House and I was ridiculed –
that construction of the new hospital will not start until 2016.
For years we were saying here it was going to be 2014, 2015 and he said
it will not start until 2016.
I urge
the government, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the residents who are going to use
these facilities, let's do it, let's do it right, let's follow on the
commitments that were made. If
anybody has any concerns about the new regional hospital in Corner Brook, ask
the member, ask Larry Wells, where his government stands on PET scanning
services, where does he stand on all the other services that were committed a
while back, back in 2007.
Seven
years later, Mr. Speaker, here is an opportunity to keep the governments feet to
the fire because once it is done we need to do it right, not like the long-term
care facility where they cut 100 beds.
We cannot have that any more.
We have to do it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I urge the government to get moving on this new hospital.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
I have a petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS
there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an enclave
community in Gros Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS
visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to
communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS
cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday living for
residents; and
WHEREAS
cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and residents; and
WHEREAS
cellphone service is essential for business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with
the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National
Park and the enclave community of Trout River.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, the people of Trout River all through the last session sent petitions
to me, and all through this session they are sending petitions to me.
This town of approximately 650 people, which is now in addition to being
an enclave community, is well known internationally because of the blue whale
which went ashore there and two others that were nearby.
It has
now had more Internet hits than any other town in that region.
The Internet hits have been in the millions.
If anybody should go there and decide that they want to call home next
summer, they want to telephone and say, guess what, I am in Trout River, this is
where the whale went ashore; they cannot do it.
The same
issue will happen if there is anybody there who is going to attempt to avail of
the 911 service that people are paying for.
You are in Trout River, you want a 911 service.
You assume the 911 service is all over the Province because people are
paying for a 911 service. People
expect to have a 911 service as government so proudly proclaimed.
In fact, there is no cellphone service there.
What do
you do? Do you go knock on
somebody's door and say, I would like to call 911 because my husband or wife is
having a heart attack or a stroke, or we just had a motor vehicle accident?
From that area they cannot call the police, they cannot call an
ambulance, and they cannot call 911 from a cellphone.
Mr.
Speaker, this is absolutely unpardonable, that government has made no effort
whatsoever to work with the private sector.
This is not even a request for money; this is a request to partner with
the private sector and see what possibilities are available.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
leave, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Bill 5, An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991, and move that the said bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development shall
have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Elections Act 1991,
Bill 25, and that the said bill be now read the first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill
25 and that the bill be now read a first time?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development to
introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991”, carried.
(Bill 25)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KING:
Presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently, by leave.
On
motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by
leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the
record, I am not sure if I said Bill 5 or Bill 25.
For Hansard, it was intended to be Bill 25.
Mr.
Speaker, at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, with leave for Bill 25, An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991, to be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 25 entitled, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.” (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
By leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the
member opposite, I do not have recreation; that is gone in another direction.
I lost that one.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand and introduce this bill on behalf of government.
Bill 25 is entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, 1991.
For those who are paying attention to the debate through the televised
version, basically what we are doing is we are bringing forward an amendment
here to the Elections Act to confirm the validity of the writ that was issued
for the by-elections in two electoral districts, the Districts of Trinity – Bay
de Verde and Humber East.
Mr.
Speaker, there is a very straightforward process in place for the calling of
by-elections in the Province.
Essentially, very much what we are doing here today is correcting a procedural
error.
Perhaps
by way of a little bit of background, when the error was discovered, the Clerk
of Executive Council held a press conference – sorry, before that happened, met
with all three parties, myself, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the
Leader of the New Democratic Party, and took us through an explanation of what
had transpired with respect to a procedural error.
It was agreed at that point in time by all three that unanimously we
would support the route we are taking here today to make a legislative change.
I thank the other two leaders of the respective parties for their support
in moving forward.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, again, for the benefit of those who are paying
attention at home, the error that occurred here was in the gazetting of the call
of the by-elections. So, essentially
what happens is a dual-track process where the writ is dropped – i.e. the
election is called. When that
happens, direction is sent to the electoral office and the Chief Electoral
Officer will make the official call of the election and the wheels are kicked in
motion. At the same time, officials
from Cabinet Secretariat would notify the legislative branch of government, and
at that point in time then the information on the calling of the by-election is
gazetted, where it is advertised publicly.
It is a very standard process, Mr. Speaker, that has been used for many,
many years.
What
happened here was as the – let me say it this way, as the Clerk explained it to
us, because at the bureaucratic level the Clerk of the Executive Council who
took us through this – as the Clerk explained it to us, it was an oversight on
behalf of an employee who forgot to gazette the calling of the by-elections.
So, subsequent to that, a number of discussions occurred, and certainly
the Clerk would have sought legal advice from a number of sources and conveyed
that to all three political parties.
There was some substantial discussion about whether in fact we needed to go this
route or whether in fact the dropping of the writ, the calling of the
by-election, might have been safe as it was.
It was
felt, Mr. Speaker, by the Clerk, based upon advice received and careful analysis
of a number of pieces of advice, that the safest route for all of us would be to
do some retroactive legislation, which we are proposing to do here today, that
would essentially cover off the lack of gazetting of the call of the elections.
The concern, frankly, was that in the absence of this legislation it
could potentially leave the door open for somebody to challenge the legality of
the calling of the by-election and the subsequent result, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, we are all very concerned about the democratic process taking place.
An election was called, candidates were in place, brochures and other
media had been enlisted, and money spent.
It would have been a considerable decision should something have to halt
that process and start over. As I
said, after a number of discussions, myself and the two Opposition party leaders
agreed with the direction the Clerk had suggested, which was we bring forward
this legislation today.
What the
legislation is doing, essentially it is retroactive to the dropping of the writ
and the process that was followed.
It will make the process we are following today legal, Mr. Speaker, and thereby
avoid any potential for challenges around the process of the dropping of the
writ.
I will
say that, as a result of this, we did have a discussion of a different note with
the leaders around whether or not it is something we need to look at down the
road, the actual process of the gazetting.
There are two independent processes.
Once the writ gets dropped the legislative branch deals with a process
around gazetting. Whereas from the
Chief Electoral Officer's perspective, he feels everything is legitimate and we
could have proceeded as we did.
There
are two very diverse views on how we ought to have proceeded.
Notwithstanding what we are doing today, without speaking for party
leaders, I think there was a general sense that we may want to take a look at
that as part of a review of the Elections Act at some point down the road.
Right now it is governed by two particularly separate pieces of
legislation.
At least
my read on our discussions is that at some point in time there might be an
interest in trying to streamline that process so that in fact we do not get
caught in a situation like this again.
In fact, give the legislation strength so that once the by-election is
called and the notification is sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, everything
is valid and full steam ahead.
Perhaps the gazetting is not required because once it is called it becomes
public knowledge anyway.
That is
not what we are doing today, Mr. Speaker.
What we are doing today is making a change that will correct the error
that was made, and hopefully will get the support of all members in the House.
I know the officials who were a part of this, Mr. Speaker, have agonized
significantly over this. We have
great officials here in the bureaucracy who work hard on behalf of all of us in
the House, not just government. They
work hard for the Opposition party members as well, every single day.
On
occasion an oversight happens, a slip-up happens, or somebody makes a mistake.
We all do it, Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, we recognize there are times we need to support our officials.
If an error like this occurs that is, as we are told, not a significant
error and there is something we can do to correct it, then we will.
I will
be certainly supporting the motion.
I would encourage all members of the House to support this motion so we can make
sure the oversight that was made is corrected and that the call of the
by-elections are legitimate and valid and not subject to any court challenges
down the road.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the
Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to be back in my seat here again, Mr. Speaker, representing my
constituents in the District of St. John's North.
I guess the seasons are changing outside because we see a bit of snow out
there now. There will be more of
that as we get in towards closer and closer to the Christmas season.
So I hope we can try and make it as much of a productive sitting of the
House of Assembly as we possibly can.
I am
happy to rise in my place and speak to this piece of legislation.
I would like to say from the outset that I am happy to support it, and
all of us here with the official Opposition caucus are supportive of this.
We know how important it is to ensure everything is lined up properly
with the by-elections that are now in the process of – people are out there
campaigning, and as the hon. Government House Leader said, they have literature
printed. Of course, government
itself has gone through a significant expense to hold the by-elections.
The Chief Electoral Office has had to rent space, hire people, and spend
a certain amount of money already in order to make sure we can have these
by-elections in a timely manner.
It is
really a question of a timely manner as well, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to go through too much history, but I am certainly sure
that the people who are home watching this on their TV this afternoon are
wondering exactly how it is we came to this place.
Of course, we have had a lot of change in the House of Assembly over the
past year, year-and-a-half, new members being elected, and members who are here
for some period of time going elsewhere.
It was
back earlier this fall that the former Minister of Finance, Ms Johnson, the
former Member for Trinity – Bay de Verde, vacated her seat and decided she was
no longer going to continue to be able to be Minister of Finance and represent
the constituents in Trinity – Bay de Verde.
That is certainly her decision and we have to respect that.
It is interesting that she will not be here to see the fullness of the
Budget that was passed under her leadership as Minister of Finance.
She left that position as Minister of Finance.
It was
not a whole lot longer after that, that the former Minister of Justice – Mr.
Speaker, this is back when we had a convention of having an elected Minister of
Justice in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the present, where we have an –
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the amendment.
MR.
KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The former Minister of Justice, Mr. French, decided he
would step down from that position and no longer represent the constituents in
the District of Conception Bay South.
There was also another member, the former Premier.
He was Acting Premier, or a reluctant Premier.
As it turns out in the news now he was not as reluctant at all, he wishes
he had to have run for the position to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, the former Premier, who was also at one
time Minister of Finance, also has subsequently stepped down as the Member for
Humber East. That is sort of the
course of the resignations we had from the government Cabinet this fall.
Really, if you think about the sequence of things, the
way those resignations happened to spur these by-elections, ideally or really if
you think about it in a logical way, government would have called the
by-election that had the seat vacated first as the first by-election.
Government did not do that.
They waited, in fact.
They called the by-election for Conception Bay South.
That was Minister French who stepped down after Minister Johnson.
They called that one first.
There is certainly speculation amongst the public, the media, the pundits, and
so on about why they did it that way, why that by-election was called with that
particular timing.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I am prepared to give the hon. member some leeway, but
obviously the amendment is specific to two specific by-elections.
I ask the member to confine his comments to those, please.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker.
Of course I am just trying to clarify for the folks
watching at home how we ended up here.
I will speed things up a little bit significantly.
I noticed I only have about fifty-four minutes left to speak.
Government decided to call the by-election in
Conception Bay South as the first one they chose to call.
We know Mr. Hillier is sitting in the Speaker's gallery today.
He will be sworn in at the end of the week.
That was how that went.
Government really waited until the last minute, the
eleventh hour if you will, to call the by-election in Trinity – Bay de Verde.
It could have been called significantly earlier than it was.
For whatever reasons, whether it was political posturing or strategy or
what have you, there was a significant delay if you look at the time period and
the statutory requirement for government to call that by-election.
Well, they were not in a big rush to do it; there is no question about
that, Mr. Speaker. That was pretty
obvious from the timing there.
As I said, the former Premier, who was really wanting
to step down for a significant period of time, he, by coincidence, I am sure,
decided that he would step down at exactly the same time, which was the eleventh
hour for calling this by-election in Trinity – Bay de Verde to replace the
former Minister of Finance.
One of the things we have to realize here, why we ended
up with this today, is that people at the executive levels of government, and
certainly including the Cabinet, but all the people around them and all of the
people who work for Executive Council and really control a lot of the higher
level bureaucracy, if you will, they have a lot to do, obviously.
There are significant sums of money in question.
We look at the volatility of the price of oil, which is what really feeds
a large part of our economy. Those
people who work in those jobs are under a significant amount of pressure and
have a lot of work to do. I guess
you could make the argument that it behooves us, certainly government, as
legislators, and people who are in charge of the timing of decisions to make
sure that decisions are not made in a way that impact the work of those people
who are at some points in the year overburdened by just the amount of work and
the seriousness of the jobs they do.
So, the way I understand this is that government waited
for a significant period of time, appeared to want to get the one by-election
out of the way in Conception Bay South –
MR.
KING:
A point of order.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I tried to resist the urge to interrupt the hon. member
from speaking. Now, he has a lot he
wants to say about the bill, but the explanatory note on this is very clear.
This bill is not a commentary on whether the government, the Premier, or
anyone on this side of the House ought to or ought not have called by-elections
when they did. The government acted
within the spirit of the legislation provided.
It has nothing to do with what we are debating here today.
This is very clearly a piece of legislation to confirm
that the dropping of the writ for two by-elections in two very specific
districts, this piece of legislation confirms that to be valid.
Nothing more, Mr. Speaker.
There is no opportunity, nothing relevant here to this legislation that provides
a member the latitude to comment on the operations of government or other pieces
of legislation in the electoral act.
I would ask that you rule that the member confine his
remarks to the relevance of this particular bill.
MR.
SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
I remind the hon. Member, too, it is a limited scope
amendment.
MR.
KIRBY:
Sure.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the function of government and where this
piece of legislation falls, really, I guess the buck stops with the Attorney
General when it comes to this. Maybe
somebody could clarify about it if I am not correct.
I believe the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer would come under the
Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, would it not?
Unfortunately, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the Minister of Justice, is not with us here in the House of Assembly.
I am not sure if she is still up in the public gallery or not, Mr.
Speaker, but that would be the Cabinet member who addresses this.
It is hard for me to stand here and criticize the hon. the Government
House Leader for incompetence or what have you because I know that gentleman
across from me is not the minister in this Cabinet who is really responsible for
this bill here today; but I have to say, I find it highly problematic that
people would say this is a bureaucratic error.
Someone said to me at one point in the last year that
government and Cabinet and sitting in these seats, we all know what a privilege
it is, but it is the sort of job that the buck stops with the top.
Problems flow upward, not downward, so someone has to take responsibility
at some point; but I did not hear that when this was introduced.
Like I said, I am reluctant to accuse anyone here
because the person whose office is responsible for this bill is not sitting here
in this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, and will not be for some time from what I
can understand.
In the end, I find it very uncomfortable.
We ask questions here in the House of Assembly.
I have asked questions about the status
and nature of the education system over time and I am accused of – you cannot
attack our teachers that way. If
this was phrased in the same way from this side of the House of Assembly, there
would be members opposite who would say how dare you attack the bureaucracy like
that.
I just cannot see –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
KIRBY: –
how
you can take so little responsibility for – like someone said to me when I was
out canvassing in Salmon Cove the other day, in Trinity – Bay de Verde, they
said they cannot even call a by-election right.
That is what the person said to me.
This woman said: I saw the news, and they cannot even call a by-election
right.
Someone has to take responsibility for this.
You cannot just slough it off and blame it on some poor person who
at the eleventh hour, at the
last minute, when this by-election absolutely had to be called, we were at the
drop-dead deadline, it had to be called, that this slipped through the cracks,
but somebody was making the call, Mr. Speaker.
Somebody
was saying we need to issue the writs for the two by-elections.
For the one in Trinity – Bay de Verde that we waited until the last
minute for, and the one in Humber East that coincidently happened around the
same time. Somebody has to take
responsibility for that.
I just
think it is really sad to sit here and blame someone, other than yourselves,
because this was a design of government, not of anybody in the bureaucracy.
People in the bureaucracy do not decide when by-elections are going to be
called. No one comes in here in the
morning – who is a civil servant – and says, I think I am going to call a
by-election today, Mr. Speaker. No
one does that. It is the people at
the top. It is Premier's job.
It is the Cabinet's job.
We are
here today with this bill – and I am not going to tie up any more time because I
think I have made my point relatively clear, but we are here with this bill
today, not because of the incompetence of any individual who is a public servant
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who was not elected to a seat in
this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
It is no one's fault but this government, waiting until the eleventh hour to
call a by-election that they really should have called even before CBS, but for
whatever reason they waited and waited and waited.
I do not
know if they could not get anybody to run for them out there.
I do not know what happened.
You hear all sorts of stories, but for some reason this was held until the
eleventh hour, the last minute because – well, we do not know why.
No explanation has been given.
The only explanation that has been given here today is that someone made
a mistake. It was a bureaucratic
error, and now we have to pass a piece of legislation in the people's Assembly
in Newfoundland and Labrador that says the by-elections that we called wrong,
were actually called right. That
sounds like a joke you would hear somewhere on Bay Street in Ontario.
It is a sad statement, Mr. Speaker, but I will leave it at that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a change to the Elections Act to accommodate two by-elections
that were not called right, or were not called in time, or were not called
properly.
The
reason I am going to limit my comments is when I was very first in the House of
Assembly, it seemed to me like we were wasting a lot of time.
I took the number of sitting days and the number of sitting hours and
minutes and divided it by how much it costs to run the House of Assembly.
It worked out to $22,000 a minute.
Twenty-two thousand dollars a minute is what it was a couple of years
ago, so I will try not to use up too many minutes.
I thought a member's statement is a minute, so that is $22,000.
That is a lot of money.
The
reason that this bill is necessary – and we have to support it.
If we do not support it, then we would have to have two more by-elections
because these by-elections might be deemed to be invalid.
Constitutionally, they probably would be.
This is
an act to amend the Elections Act, because somebody had a problem and did not
gazette on time the two by-elections.
So that people who are watching can understand what this is all about and
why we are taking time today when we could be dealing with other legislation, it
is not that this legislation is not important.
Clearly it is important because we need to get the by-elections right.
This
government has had some experience with by-elections, so they should know how to
call one. They called one in
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. They
got that one right. They did not win
but they got it right. The Member
for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is here.
Then they called in one Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
They called that one on time.
That was okay. They called one in
Virginia Waters, a by-election under the same Elections Act.
They got that one right. They
did not win it but they got it right on calling it.
They called one in St. George's – Stephenville East.
They got that one right. They
lost that one too. They called one
in Conception Bay South.
They
could have called all three at the same time, Mr. Speaker.
They could have called all three, because all three seats were vacant.
Probably it would have saved the taxpayers some money.
We need
to amend the Elections Act of the Province, Mr. Speaker, for all time to
accommodate somebody not having called the election in time.
The executive part of the government, the Premier's Office, Cabinet, the
people who are charged with calling a by-election, it is not that they did not
have enough time. They have sixty
days to call a by-election and another twenty-one days or so to run the
by-election. That should be lots of
time. At the very last minute, Mr.
Speaker, they ran the clock down day after day after day after day.
They ran the clock down.
The
Elections Act that we are dealing with is an Elections Act which is a good piece
of legislation because it requires by-elections to be called.
We certainly need by-elections to be called.
In the earlier versions, in the predecessors to the act, a seat could
remain vacant for months. It could
remain vacant for a year. In a way,
it is a good thing that we call by-elections in short order.
It is a
bad thing when government literally takes a stopwatch – a stopwatch that I think
we should have had in Question Period today.
Timing might have been a little bit better.
When government literally takes a stopwatch and runs the clock down, runs
the calendar down to the very last day, the very last hour of the very last day,
and the people of the Province then have to watch the House of Assembly on the
very first piece of legislation for the fall session, under a new Premier, under
a bunch of new ministers, we have to debate fixing something that they got
wrong.
The last
time we debated something that we had to fix legislation in this session that –
MR. SPEAKER:
I am going to ask the hon.
member to stick to the bill, please.
I gave you a fair amount of latitude.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This is
about fixing an error made by government, an error in a very simple,
straightforward act. Call a
by-election. Call a by-election
under the Elections Act, because the Elections Act says you must call a
by-election within sixty days. They
did not get it right. They waited
too long, and at the last minute realized: oh, good grief, we called the
by-election. We have the by-election
called wrong. What can we do now?
Well,
let's talk to the Opposition. The
candidates are in the field, and anybody who loses the election on a
technicality, the technicality being that the election was not even really
called – because without this legislation being passed, Mr. Speaker, a court of
law on an application for judicial review of whether this election was called or
not, will in all likelihood say no, you did not call an election.
You did not call the by-elections because it needed to be gazetted.
You did not finish it off.
You did not do the job.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure how much clearer I can be to the people of the Province
than to say this government, after calling four by-elections and losing them all
– now have five by-elections lost; that one out and these two more.
What was the reluctance? Why
did they not call the by-election in time?
Such that we have to fix up another mistake that they want to blame on
people who are paid by the people of the Province, other than the elected
people.
The
elected people should take this one on the chin and say, look, I am really
sorry; we made a mistake. No harm,
no foul, let's change the thing.
Let's get the co-operation of the Opposition to say, which they have, let's
amend the Elections Act so we can save a few dollars; but, no, they want to
blame it on bureaucrats, people who cannot come into the House and defend
themselves, people who are long-standing and hard-working public employees who
know exactly what they are doing.
They
have no recourse, Mr. Speaker. I
think it is really cheap and improper to blame the people who are working for
you when they have done the job, but you did not let them do the job properly
because you waited until the very last hour of the very last day to call a
by-election, which clearly they knew they needed to do.
Mr.
Speaker, I have used six minutes. I
think that will be around $132,000 of the people's money, so I will sit down
now.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite is concerned with public expenditures, and he has just tallied
up, his own calculations would tell him that he just wasted $120,000 of
taxpayers' money.
This
bill is extremely simple, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very short, brief bill.
I just want to read something to you in the explanatory note: This bill
would amend the Elections Act to confirm the validity of writs issued by
by-elections in the electoral Districts of Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber
East. That is what it is about, Mr.
Speaker, very simply, to make a correction to ensure that the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
– two by-elections that we
are currently in the middle of does not find itself being subject to a legal
challenge after the by-elections are over and the people of those districts
having to go through that same process again.
It is simply an administrative process.
Thus far
we have heard two members of the Liberal Opposition get up and talk about
everything from the process of by-elections, and the number of by-elections that
have been held. In fact, we even
heard the Member for St. John's North go through a process of how he got to the
other side. He had a disagreement
with the Leader of the NDP and decided to leave because they could not mend
fences. We have had a –
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member to
keep his remarks to the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
I will, Mr. Speaker.
I just
assumed that the latitude everybody else had that I may be afforded the same
thing. I will confine my comments to
the bill at hand, which is clearly we want to make sure that we correct an error
that was made.
The
issue of errors, Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite – and this speaks, I
think, to what we witnessed in recent months.
The members of the Liberal Opposition will continuously get up and talk
about what is wrong with the world, what government may do, and what other
people may do. They want to make
sure that they have sharpened their skills at being critical of everybody else.
I have yet to hear any suggestion about how things might be done
correctly.
What we
have here, Mr. Speaker, is an issue of an administrative error that was made.
Errors occur periodically.
Everybody in this House is human.
Everybody who works with the government is human.
Occasionally there will be an administrative error.
This bill is intended to correct that administrative error.
Unfortunately, many members of the Opposition have decided that they want to
make some political hay of this, some cheap political shots, and to try to
suggest that somehow or other an administrative error had something to do with
an incompetent government. Mr.
Speaker, clearly this is not an issue of how the Province has been governed.
This has nothing to do with whether or not by-elections should or should
not get called.
This was
a process where a government was complying with the legislation as to the
timelines for calling an election.
There is an identified process for this.
There is a piece of legislation that clearly defines how elections get
called and that is the Elections Act.
We are amending the Elections Act today, but this action today was not
prompted by the Elections Act. This
action today is prompted by another piece of legislation that we are not
amending.
The
Elections Act is pretty clear as to when you call an election, how you go about
calling it, and what time frames you must call in.
The Chief Electoral Officer is guided by that particular piece of
legislation.
We find
ourselves today, not by virtue of there being an error with the Elections Act,
not by virtue of an action being taken that is contrary to the Elections Act,
but we find ourselves here today, Mr. Speaker, talking about having to amend an
Elections Act because of a process that was guided by a piece of legislation
called the Statues and Subordinate Legislation Act which required the writ to be
gazetted.
This,
Mr. Speaker, is a simple administrative error that is being corrected in the
House today on behalf of the people of the two districts involved.
The very last thing that anyone would want in this House – in fact, that
is pretty interesting, Mr. Speaker, nobody on any side of this House would want
to have a circumstance where these two by-elections would proceed and at the end
of the day someone finds themselves having to go to a court and challenge the
outcome through a court, and only to lose.
No one in this House would want to subject the residents of those two
districts to that kind of a questioning.
In fact,
as I understand it, when this issue surfaced initially the representatives from
each of the three political parties sitting in this House got together and said:
Listen, we now recognize there was an error that occurred here.
How do we go about fixing it?
At that moment in time, there was an agreement as to how this would be done.
It was acknowledged simply as being an error, we need to fix it, and no
one wants to do anything that would undermine the rights and the benefits of the
people who live in those districts.
We find
ourselves here today, we have been an hour or so talking about an amendment to a
bill where individuals on the opposite side of the House wanted to take some
cheap shots at individuals for a political benefit as they see it, but all it
does is just highlights the arrogance of those individuals over there because
they have become quite smug in their successes at the polls recently.
What we
are witnessing here today is some cheap politics being played and what the House
is trying to do is really navigate a piece of legislation through the House that
makes an amendment to a bill to change what might have been an administrative
oversight, and that is simply what it is.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, it is about time that we now move on to this bill with the pace in
which we should deal with it so we can put this behind us and move on to more
significant business of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to speak to Bill 25. I point
out to the Minister of Finance that the only bill we have before us that we can
discuss this afternoon is Bill 25.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
So when he calls upon us not
to waste time over this so that we can get on with more business, well there is
no more business for today, as far as I can tell, except doing this.
If we rush it, then we are going to have to sit and listen to the other
side of the House spend the rest of the afternoon proclaiming how wonderful they
are. I am not sure I am really up to
listening to either party proclaiming how wonderful they are.
This is all that we are left with this afternoon.
So since it is all that we are left with I am going to speak to it, I say
to the minister, Mr. Speaker.
There
are little bits of information. The
House Leader did a good job in explaining the bill and the Minister of Finance
has added to it, but there are a couple of other little points, I think, that is
important to point out to people.
Probably one of the reasons why the error was made – because, looking at other
jurisdictions, we have an unnecessary step in this Province.
When we
had the briefing, and I did represent our caucus at the briefing, we were told
by the Clerk of Executive Council and by legal counsel who were there to explain
the issue to us, we were told by them that in actual fact the process of
gazetting for a writ does not exist in the other jurisdictions.
The Elections Act, which asks for a proclamation signed by the Lieutenant
Governor, followed then by the dropping of the writ, is all that one needed for
an election to be declared.
The
piece of legislation that has been referred to, the piece in the Statues and
Subordinate Legislation Act, that piece refers to various pieces of legislation
relating to acts that happen along the way after an act has been put in place.
For example, new rules relating to a piece of legislation have to be
gazetted. Another thing that has to
be gazetted are proclamations.
Well,
the interesting thing is that when an election happens, whether it is a
by-election or a general election, there has to be a proclamation of the
election. When this other act talks
about proclamations, it can be argued legally that it covers election
proclamation as well. I think it has
already been said, but I am going to say it again.
Even though the Elections Act says there are only two steps that are
needed for an election to be called, whether it is a general or
by-election, this other act says that any proclamation that is made relating to
a piece of legislation has to be gazetted and it has to be gazetted on the same
day the proclamation is signed.
One can argue that the Elections Act stands alone.
We could have taken the chance and said we do not need to put this change
in which looks at an exemption, that we do not need this.
In actual fact if we did that, we would have opened the door to all kinds
of possibilities that could have made a mockery of our election system.
We could have had some people for political purposes saying these
by-elections are invalid. I may have
a vendetta against somebody who is running or a vendetta against a party; I
think I am going to take some legal action here and say that these by-elections
are invalid.
We had a choice given to us.
Our choice was: Do we leave it alone?
Do we say the Elections Act stands alone?
Or do we leave the door open for the potential of somebody seeing a
loophole they might want to argue, and a loophole they may want to drag through
the courts? This could have made a
real mockery of our election system and of the by-election.
Based on that, I certainly saw the reasons and the
necessity for bringing in the amendment we have here today, which basically is
saying that even though something is written in the Elections Act with regard to
a writ being dropped, notwithstanding a section – I am sorry in the Statutes and
Subordinate Legislation Act, that statute which says the gazetting has to happen
on the same day. In spite of that
piece of legislation in another act, we are saying here today, these two
by-elections are valid.
I feel comfortable in saying that, number one, knowing
what is in the Elections Act, the two steps that make an election call valid;
and, also knowing that the gazetting of the proclamation is not something that
is done in other jurisdictions.
Those first two steps are all that is necessary in most jurisdictions.
Knowing that having the proclamation gazetted and
gazetted on the same day the writ is dropped is something that is not a general
practice, then I felt it was valid.
I can support doing what we are doing.
I think it is really important that we realize – and as
the House Leader talked about – we do have a responsibility to make sure that
everything that is written, that all our legislation is accurate, that it is
useful, that it expedites the whole movement of democracy here in our Province.
We have that responsibility.
We also have a responsibility, and it is certainly the
responsibility of a minister, to make sure all the steps that have to be taken
according to our legislation are taken; but if we discover we have things in our
legislation that are really slowing down a process and are unnecessary, then we
are going to need to look at our elections process from that perspective, so the
change that might need to happen in the case of the calling of elections,
general or by, is a change that might have to be made in this other act rather
than the Elections Act itself, or there could be something in the Elections Act
that refers back to the other act saying that the gazetting of proclamations
does not cover elections proclamations.
That is the kind of thing we will need to have a look
at and decide whether or not that needs to be done in order to make sure this
kind of error, which in and of itself was an unnecessary error in the sense that
the gazetting should not even be necessary, that this kind of error does not
happen again.
In our Province we have an awful lot of people who are
not voting. Our voting percentage
has gone down considerably. In the
CBS by-election, for example, it was only 43 per cent of people who turned out
for that election. So, people
already are showing more than a lack of interest in our elections, but they
almost have a disdain for elections.
We have a real responsibility, and the government has a
responsibility, and we should not be laughing at our responsibility.
We have a responsibility to make sure that people are not mocking our
system, that people are not making fun of us, that people – because we all carry
it. We all carry it, if we are not
carrying out our business correctly and efficiently and accurately.
The more they see that, the more they then will say: Why even bother to
vote? So making sure we have a
process that is moving smoothly, that is moving well, is extremely important.
What we did the other day is a good sign of what we
need in our government. When the
three parties sit together, receive a briefing, and sit there and say this is a
good thing, we need to do this. We
really do not want this to become an issue, because it is not an issue that is
substantive. We do not want it to
become an issue and become something that could actually mock our electoral
system. We need to work together,
and that is why the three parties are here together saying we do want this
amendment.
To do that together at a table in one room and then
come in here and make fun of the process does not make sense to me.
Working together is what we need, and there are various ways for that to
happen, through a committee structure working together –
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the amendment, please.
MS
MICHAEL:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.
What we did last week, getting our briefing together
and understanding together why we are doing this, is good and it is a sample of
how we may continue that. As we
continue to look at our Elections Act, because we did agree on that last week at
the briefing we had, that we really do need now to look at our whole electoral
process and system and look at the legislation to make sure there are no more
loopholes like this in our legislation around elections.
I hope in doing that we will broaden our thinking, look
at how we can better work together so people will want to vote, look at things
like proportional representation, things that will encourage people to see we
can get a system here that shows people we are working together as the people
they elect, working together for their good.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly happy to have the integration of Early
Childhood Development into Education, and we will speak to that at another time.
For right now, of course, we know that we are looking at Bill 25, An Act
to Amend the Elections Act, 1991.
It is a little surprising to me some of the commentary
I am hearing regarding what seems to me to be a housekeeping item that we should
be able to move through fairly quickly, particularly given the fact that the
three parties – as the Leader of the Third Party just said here in the House –
have already met around this, they have already agreed to this amendment, and
they understand that we simply need to move forward and get it done.
It is a little surprising to me that we need to have
this much debate in the House of Assembly regarding this particular act.
We are simply about correcting a human error, Mr. Speaker, that which can
happen any time to any one at any place.
We have recognized it, all parties understand the need
to correct it, and so we get on with doing that.
What we are seeing is a debate of some hour or so at this point in time
with the Leader of the Third Party even suggesting that we need to stay at this
because if not, we will have to resort to Address in Reply to the Speech from
the Throne. She does not want to do
that. She wants to insult the Speech
from the Throne by His Honour.
It is absolutely amazing to me, Mr. Speaker, but that
is what she said here in the House and Hansard can show you
that she said: if not this,
then we have to go back and listen to the people from the other side.
I am a little surprised but it certainly explains to us why there has
been so much stalling on this very simple housekeeping item that we need to do
here today.
Mr.
Speaker, what we will do is we will simply reiterate from this side what needs
to happen here in order to amend this bill.
It is a fairly standard process.
It involves a series of steps.
It involves the Lieutenant Governor and other officials signing a
proclamation, that proclamation is then conveyed to the Chief Electoral Office
for the issuance of the writ, and then to Legislative Counsel for gazetting.
Mr.
Speaker, in that process there was a delay that occurred, simply because
something was happening late in the afternoon.
I understand that the issuance of the writ was taking place somewhere
around the 6:00 o'clock period in the evening.
The assumption was made that the gazetting would be okay to happen in the
morning. It is a simple
administrative error.
Internal
process, people have recognized it.
It is brought forward. Discussion
was had amongst all three parties. A
decision was made, let's take it to the House, let's amend the act, let's get it
corrected because we certainly do not mean for anything untoward to happen here.
Whatever the outcome of both of those elections, Mr. Speaker, we do not
mean for anything untoward to happen, so let's go about rectifying this.
The bill
is actually as simple as that. It is
amending by renumbering subsection 58(1), and by adding immediately after that
subsection of the following: the fact that writs respecting the by-elections to
be held in the electoral districts of Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber East
were issued on November 3, 2014; but, the proclamations respecting those
by-elections were not published in the Gazette until November 4, the very next
morning, Mr. Speaker. That does not
invalidate those writs, nor does it in any way affect the validity of calling
those by-elections.
That is
what we want to do. We want to make
sure that those by-elections are still valid by-elections.
The people who are out there who have decided to put their names forward,
Mr. Speaker, to seek election to this hon. House are working hard at what they
are doing, and they believe in the democratic process.
That is why they have come forward.
We want
to ensure that the work they are doing and the success that two of them will
meet with will be validated. It is
very simple, Mr. Speaker, no more than that to it.
There is nothing untoward happening here.
It is the recognition of a simple error, and trying to fix it here in
this House of Assembly.
I
believe it was the Member for St. Barbe who said it would cost $22,000 a minute
here in this House of Assembly. He
had calculated out $22,000 a minute; yet, we have people standing and going on
and on and on about something as simple as a process that was already agreed to,
Mr. Speaker, outside of this Chamber.
When people actually sat down, discussed this and said: Yes, we
understand how that happened. We
understand the need to correct it.
Let's put something in place. It was
agreed to. Let's put something in
place. We will go into the House of
Assembly and do it.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we are here to do it. I
have no doubt that is what we are going to do, and I think we ought to get on
with it, Mr. Speaker. So I will
certainly be voting for this amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my
privilege to stand and speak to Bill 25.
We have had a number of members who have taken their liberties in
suggesting that it was some political grandstanding on the part of the Official
Opposition. Well, I will say, Mr.
Speaker, in this particular case it is not the case at all.
I do
believe that the public and people who are watching this today, have a right to
know what this bill is all about and how we got there.
So, the urgency around making the correction and the administrative here
that has been discussed already, we understand that.
For me, as the Leader of the Official Opposition, I just want to put some
timelines and some perspective on what it is we are actually talking about here
today.
This was
two by-elections that were called in the lateness of the day on Monday.
Keep in mind that on Tuesday, November 4, we were up against a deadline
in the Elections Act that said the election would have to be called within sixty
days; therefore, the election would have to be over within ninety days.
These are the parameters of what the staff was up against on Monday,
November 3, late into the day.
We
understand the proclamation process, how it occurred, and the events that
surround it late on Monday of that day.
On November 4, it would have been a different situation.
Even though the Chief Electoral Office was involved in this process, we
were called, as the Official Opposition, on Thursday morning, November 6.
This was when we were first notified.
I think it is fair that this schedule, this timeline becomes part of this
debate so the people would understand why it is we are here today.
One
thing that has not come up, however, is this.
Much of the discussion today has been about three political parties here
in the House of Assembly. Three
political parties, and we have agreed, and we will support this bill.
We must keep in mind, though, that the democratic process in the Province
and in all jurisdictions allows for people who are not aligned to a political
party to put their name on a ballot.
That was not discussed today, and was one thing that we did discuss in our
meeting. We have to make provision
that independence would be included in this process.
It is
fine for members in this House of Assembly to get up and say we are going to
support those changes to validate this election on November 25 in Humber East
and Trinity – Bay de Verde as political parties, but we must keep in mind that
there are people out there today, or when this decision was made, who might have
wanted to run as an independent.
They deserve the right to have an understanding about what this would mean to
them as well.
The
Chief Electoral Office made it quite clear he was not prepared to bring that
writ back. He had issued the writ
and was not prepared to bring it back.
It was during this discussion we had with the party leaders, and the
House Leader in this particular case, that we all agreed that having to do this
process over again would not be best.
We
understand it was an administrative error, and we agreed we would support this
today, but on November 6 we also agreed that we needed to let the public know as
quickly as possible, because there could be someone in those districts who saw
fit to run as an independent. That
was the reason why we felt it was important to get out as quickly as we could,
not wait until November 17, but we would put our support behind this on November
6, and we all agreed that we would support this legislation.
It was
not just about political parties. It
was about people in those districts who could put their name on the ballot, run
as independents in a fair, democratic process.
That is what was important.
That is what was important in that discussion.
That was the reason why. This
was not about the cheap politics, as some members would say, it was about the
timelines that I just talked about.
Monday,
November 3, after 6 o'clock the proclamation was made.
On Tuesday, the fourth, it was recognized that there was a procedural
here that occurred, and indeed, it needed to be gazetted.
Therefore, the public would be notified.
That was the normal course of doing this.
On
Wednesday, there was some discussion.
On Thursday, we became involved as the three leaders.
It was then that we all agreed it was important that we get this
information out there to the public and that everybody would be notified of the
procedural here that occurred.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to delay this, but I felt it appropriate that we
establish the timelines that we understood as the Official Opposition, why we
believed it was important to get this out there as quickly as possible. We will
be supporting this, as we did, and the commitment that we made on November 6.
I just
feel it was appropriate and timely that we explain this.
It is fine for all members here in this House.
We have the benefit of understanding all of this.
People who are watching this are just wondering what this procedural
error was all about because of this debate.
The understanding that we will actually bring this piece of debate and
this piece of legislation we are talking about here today – it was important
that we get that information out there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
glad to have an opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 25.
I listened to folks on this side and the other side give their views on
Bill 25, and what the issue is in regard to this amendment.
I think it is important I just go through exactly what the amendment is
and what the issue is today that we are discussing here in the House.
The explanatory note says that, “This Bill would amend the Elections Act, 1991
to confirm the validity of writs issued for by-election in the electoral
district of Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber East.”
As we have had a number of discussions here in regard to a process, in
regard to Executive Council issuing a writ and that writ being proclaimed, there
is a process in place for that. That
happened consecutively within the same calendar day.
In this particular circumstance, due to a situation, that did not occur
in the same day. As a result, as I
said, it was not gazetted in that day.
The
procedure is very clear. It is laid
out in terms of when a writ is dropped, what happens when it is called, the
notification process, and what the requirements are for that.
The fundamental issues before that had taken place: was there anybody who
would be negatively affected by it, taking the process in totality and as a
whole; what was required; what the intent is in regard to notifying the public;
and, would anybody be aggrieved by it?
I think
based on consultation and what was done with Executive Council, the Chief
Electoral Officer and the office, and as well the leaders of the various parties
here, the House Leaders with the Official Opposition and the Third Party, got
together and reviewed the situation.
They looked at the full parameters of what the issues were in regard to the
actual legislation.
They
came to a conclusion that there was no inherent grievance to anybody in the
process, based on advice that there could be an amendment made to the act here
in the House which would allow the by-elections to proceed and everything would
be taken care of. The dates, as were
set in the original decision, could be adhered to and we could move forward.
That is
democracy. When people step forward,
dates are set for by-elections or general elections, and people get a chance to
step forward to run in those elections.
Dates are set and everything they do in terms of campaigning is driven
towards those dates.
In this
particular case when all got together they recognized that was the important
element to all of this. It is a very
straightforward amendment that we are doing here today to make sure that process
is allowed and is allowed to continue on the dates that originally were set.
The
Leader of the Third Party mentioned, when she was up, about how the
representatives got together. I
agree with her. It was positive in
terms of talking about the issue and other issues that may come up.
How in the future we may have to look at various other items, and how
consulting together we can come up with new ways of doing things.
Or if amendments need to be made in the future, it would be very
supportive of the process and making sure at the end of the day that things are
done and done appropriately.
With
this, it was a procedural error. It
was taken care of. Everybody met and
decided that this was the way forward with this amendment here today in the
House through Bill 25. I will be
supporting Bill 25 as I said and other speakers on this side have indicated.
It is
something to be rectified very easily here with this amendment.
There is no prejudice to anybody in the process, which is so important
from a democracy point of view. The
process was set, the dates were set, and we could move forward.
With this separate amendment it could be taken care of and we move
forward to the election date, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
I recognize the hon. the
Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand and speak to Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Elections Act,
1991. We have heard a lot back and
forth in the House today. Basically
what we are talking about is a procedural error.
There has been an appropriate solution that has been agreed upon by all
three members.
What is
kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker, about procedural errors is that they often
then shine a light on issues. What
has happened now, because of this procedural error, is that it has shone a
light. It has made some of us stop
and think about elections, how important they are, and how we do them.
How we do them is what this is about.
Why
elections are so important is because people have a chance to vote to determine
who is going to sit in this House, and decide how we are going to live our lives
together as a community, how we are going to handle and manage our resources,
and how we are going to ensure that everyone is taken care of.
That is what we do here in this House, how we prepare for our future.
How our
elections are run is very, very important because the decisions that are made on
election days are so vital to how we go forward within our community.
What this has done in fact again, Mr. Speaker, is that it has made us
stop and take stock. Something went
wrong. What went wrong?
How do we go forward? We are
shining a light on our election process because it is so important.
It is the fundamental underpinning to us as a society and how we live
together.
The
interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that our current Elections Act has not been
reviewed since 2007. This is making
us stop and look at how we proclaim an election.
How do we notify the people of the Province?
Many people on both sides of the House now have talked about how this was
done in haste. Did it need to be
done in haste? There was no crisis
that precipitated it, so why was it done in haste?
One of
the things we also have to look at, Mr. Speaker, is that consistently
Newfoundland and Labrador has had among the lowest voter turnouts in the whole
country. What we should want to do
within our Elections Act, and how we execute our Elections Act, how we call our
elections, is that we would want to do it in such a way to ensure that as many
people as possible know about the election coming up and get involved.
The Leader of the Official Opposition talked about what if somebody
wanted to run as an independent, how much notice did they actually have?
I think
that is really important, Mr. Speaker.
It is so important. Voter
engagement and voter participation is so very, very important.
We stop now and look. Why the
haste? There was not a precipitating
crisis to put us up against the wall.
Oftentimes, these kinds of procedural errors happen because people are up
against the wall, because we do not have the time to do it properly.
There are lots of guidelines on how to do it properly, but because of
decisions that back us up against the wall it does not allow us to do it
properly.
It is so
very, very important that we have more voter engagement.
What is the role then of Elections Newfoundland and Labrador?
They can call; they can make sure they follow the procedures to ensure
that our elections are done fairly, that our elections are done legally, and
that they are announced.
Because
we have such low voter turnout, who has the role, whose responsibility or whose
duty is it to ensure that voters are more engaged?
Who will take the responsibility to do voter education?
When a writ is dropped, when an election is proclaimed, when an election
is gazetted, who is going to take the responsibility to ensure that the people
on the margins who are not voting, whether it be young people, whether it be
people of different demographic sections of our society, or people who are on
the lower socioeconomic group – are they less likely to vote?
Once the
election is called, there is not much time.
As we can see again when there is not much time, errors are made.
Who takes that responsibility to ensure that more people vote, that more
people of different socioeconomic brackets, different educational brackets – are
enough women voting? Are enough
Aboriginal people voting? Are enough
young people voting? We do not know
that because our Newfoundland and Labrador elections do not keep those kinds of
statistics. Mr. Speaker, how do we
ensure and whose role is it to ensure that more people are engaged in the
election process?
If we
are constantly up against the wall as this error is a direct result of being up
against a wall, about not having enough time, if we are constantly up against
the wall and we do not know when the election is going to be – although we have
a fixed date election in Newfoundland and Labrador, we still do not know when
our provincial election is going to be in the Province.
That then impedes the whole issue –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
like to ask the member to come back.
I have given you a fair bit of leeway to talk about Elections Acts in general
but I think let's bring it back to the two at hand.
Thank
you.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
If we
are up against the wall, the procedural error was because there was not enough
time. People were scrambling.
It is so important that we are not scrambling around election time.
Elections are about the fundamental basis of how we decide how we are
going to live together, how we make our laws, how we make our rules, how we
share our resources, and how we plan for the future.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an amendment that we can absolutely support.
Again, to see all three parties working together to ensure that these two
by-elections are legal, although we had to do a correction in terms of the
error, it is so important that candidates have the time to be ready to run
effectively, that the people of the Province are educated, engaged, and are
pulled directly into the process of elections because it is again a determinant
in how we live our lives together.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to not just this amendment that we are looking at today,
but I think perhaps it is time to review our Elections Act because we have not
had a review since 2007. We need to
look at whose responsibility it is to encourage and engage all people across
every sector in Newfoundland and Labrador to be involved in our election
process.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations on your new duties in this hon. House.
Black looks good on you.
Maybe no one else agrees, but I think it does.
I am
pleased to rise for just a few minutes to talk about Bill 25.
I will certainly be supporting this bill.
What we have in this hon. House today is no doubt a heated agreement.
There seems to be lots of support for this bill, which makes sense
because the parties leaders were all consulted and it was agreed that this
approach would be the right approach to take.
I
appreciate the Member for St. John's Centre talking about challenges around
voter turnout and the engagement of the public in the elections process.
I do, too, see it as a real issue.
I would love to see Elections Newfoundland and Labrador and others
encouraging more people to take an active interest in actually exercising their
democratic right. We have done some
good work around Make Your Mark to encourage people to get involved in local
elections, but I think we need to do more to encourage people to get involved in
the provincial election process as well.
What we
are talking about today, the bill is a rather simple bill.
It is one paragraph long. It
is a rather simple amendment to amend the Elections Act, 1991 to confirm the
validity of the writs issued for the by-elections in the electoral Districts of
Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber East, the two by-elections that are currently
ongoing.
Back on
November 7, Executive Council advised of a procedural error that had occurred,
and it is not an error that will have any impact on the by-elections that will
take place next week. It was about
the gazetting of those writs when they were issued.
I am
pleased to know that internal processes within Cabinet Secretariat and Executive
Council have been clarified to make sure that such errors do not occur again in
the future. Every day we have
thousands of programs and services running that are delivered by thousands of
very dedicated public servants throughout our Province, and sometimes mistakes
happen. This is a simple error that
was made, but I am pleased to say that processes are now in place to ensure that
it does not happen again. There was
also a technical briefing for the media that took place on November 10, just a
few days following the discovery of the error, so that everybody has been in the
loop in terms of how this unfolded.
As I
said, the party leaders were briefed as well.
There were several options available to address this error, but everybody
agreed on the approach that has been taken.
The Chief Electoral Officer was also briefed, and certainly concurred
with the approach as well. That is
why this amendment is necessary. It
is specific to the by-elections that are ongoing right now in the two districts
I mentioned, and it validates them retroactively, notwithstanding the procedural
error that was made.
Delaying
gazetting the writ from Monday evening to Tuesday morning does not cause any
actual prejudice to any political parties or to the general public, but it does
eliminate the risk of legal challenges, and we want to make sure that the
by-elections that happen in a week or so are valid and are legal, and that is
why this is a necessary step.
So, as
many have done this afternoon, I do support the amendment.
It is a necessary piece of legislation, and I am glad that all party
leaders could work together to arrive at a solution that makes good sense.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand here again today on our first day back and speak to
legislation again. That is one of
the main reasons we are here, and certainly I take pleasure in standing here
every time I get an opportunity to speak to it.
I do not think everybody does; we were scolded by certain members of the
other side for having the audacity to debate legislation.
I am happy to be here, I am happy to speak to it, but it does not seem
everybody is.
Now,
what I want to do is I want to talk about this section, and I also want to talk
about some of the commentary regarding this that I have heard from members all
around. I agree with the Deputy
Premier when he says that this is simple.
It is simple in the sense that it is a one-paragraph clause.
It is very small when you compare it to the other pieces of legislation
that we debate.
I
disagree with the Minister of Education who said it is housekeeping.
This is not housekeeping. I
would be willing to guess – and if somebody wants to prove me wrong by all
means, that is what we are here for, correct me if I am wrong – that this is
rare. This is extremely rare.
We are passing amendments to legislation to make sure that by-elections
are valid because there was a screw up.
That is what we are doing.
I would
be interested to see if this has happened anywhere else in Canada.
I would be interested to see that.
To call this housekeeping is wrong.
Is it a small amendment? Yes,
it is, but just because it is small does not mean it is not important.
The
reason I am standing here today is that when we stand and speak, it is all on
the record. It is all in Hansard.
I want what I have to say – and I am sure every member here does want
what we say – to be recorded for posterity and perpetuity to see how we feel
about the different issues that face this House every day.
That is the purpose of it.
It is
funny; somebody said you are holding it up.
I would remind certain members of the other side that we consented to
having this bill passed in one day.
We are not holding it up. We want
these by-elections to occur. We want
the by-elections to stand. We want
to eliminate the possibility of challenge in a court of law.
Nobody wants that. That is
why we are agreeing to it.
Agreeing
to it does not mean we are going to keep quiet and not talk about it.
How would we know why it is we are doing what we are doing?
How would we know why we are here today to look at this piece of
unprecedented legislation? I am
going to put it out there as members on this side have.
They have stood up and had their say about this.
This is what we do.
I have
made some notes about this piece of legislation and about the comments that I
have heard on the other side. When
we look at this, “Notwithstanding subsection (1) and the Statutes and
Subordinate Legislation Act, the fact that writs respecting the by-elections…of
Trinity –Bay de Verde and Humber East were issued on November 3, 2014 but the
proclamations respecting those by-elections were not published in the Gazette
until November 4, 2014 does not invalidate those writs nor does it in any way
affect the validity…”
From my
limited understanding of how our system works, a member resigned.
I believe it is the government's responsibility, whether it is Executive
Council or the Premier, somebody makes the call to have the by-election.
My understanding is that you have sixty days in which to call it from the
date. Once you call it, then it must
be held within thirty days, so we are dealing with a period of ninety days.
What we
need to note here is that this by-election – and this is what we have been
mentioning. It has been said that
this is an error. When we talk about
an error, it means somebody made that error.
We are trying to get to the point of why that error happened.
That is important to why we are here today to discuss this piece of
legislation.
I
reiterate for anybody who is listening, we support it because at the end of the
day we want the by-elections to happen.
We do not want to go through the foolishness that would make these not
happen, would make them illegal or invalid.
We do not want court challenges.
It is
simple, but it is procedural. We
must follow procedure. We must
follow it. If you do not follow
procedure then you start breaking bigger rules.
That is what we want to happen.
There
was a technical error made. It was
not gazetted. I think the Leader of
the Official Opposition has made it quite clear why that is important when we
talk about everybody's access to this.
These rules were made for a reason.
The rule was broken. Now we
have to deal with the aftermath of that rule being broken.
We are
saying that this happened because of the lateness of the call of the
by-election. It was at the last
minute, the eleventh hour. That
decision is made by government, nobody else.
That decision is made by government when it is called.
By virtue of government waiting until the last minute until it is called,
that put pressure on the staff who have to respect the orders given by
government. That is what happened
there, it was the last hour. Things
did not happen, but that was at the discretion and at the direction of members
opposite and the Premier.
That is
why we are here to change the law and to respect that an error was made.
We are trying to make sure it is on the record.
We understand why this error was made, we understand why we are here
today, but we need to discuss it. We
need to put it out on the record so that people do not just see ten years from
now what happened there, those by-elections, I wish I could remember.
It is funny how the passage of time sort of diminishes our memory.
Now they
can go back and look at Hansard and say oh, that is why they did it, that is why
this happened. If we did not debate
it, if we sat down and just let this happen, as the Minister of Education wanted
us to do, then nobody would know – stifled debate.
It is funny how one thing leads to another.
The minister talked about the audacity of us to question the Throne
Speech and at the same time trying to stifle debate.
It is ironic how that happens, isn't it?
I am
going to continue on. I have a list
here. I want to make sure I address
every point that I wrote down here.
Holding
it up? No, we are not holding it up.
We are debating the legislation.
We want it to go through so that these by-elections can happen, so that
the people in these two great districts can have the representation they want
and deserve, which will be given to them when somebody is elected on November
25. That is what everybody here
wants to happen. We are not
disagreeing with that. I go back to
the second point, housekeeping. No,
it is not. It is not housekeeping.
I have
to keep going. I do not have a lot
more here. I know there was a
reference to cheap politics which I find interesting, but I will leave that
alone today. I think that has been
addressed. This is not cheap
politics. This is actually doing our
job and debating legislation. When
we do not debate legislation, we end up with mills being expropriated.
That is what happens when we do not debate.
I think
the Member for St. John's North mentioned it because he was getting questioned
on relevance. He talked about the
fact that these pieces of legislation are drafted by the chief legal officer,
who does not happen to be here.
Regardless, the point of this today, this being our first day back – I do not
think anybody wanted to be here to debate this.
We would rather be debating the other important pieces of legislation.
There were four put on the Table today and there are more coming.
Nobody wanted to have to do this, but a mistake was made.
We have to discuss why it was made, we have to discuss how it is going to
be fixed, and here is where we are right now.
On that
note, I think I have laid out why we are discussing this very important, rare
amendment today. We will support it
because we want this to move forward.
If I have any more questions I am sure I will have an opportunity in
Committee to discuss that, unless it goes against the wishes of certain members
who do not want us to debate legislation.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MR. DALLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand here today, the first day back.
Obviously there is a lot of anticipation and excitement out there around
the Province, Mr. Speaker, to see what is going to unfold over the coming weeks
as we enter into the fall session.
It is
always good to get back and have an opportunity to speak to the people of the
Province, Mr. Speaker. Today, we are
having a discussion about Bill 29 –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Bill 25.
MR.
DALLEY:
Bill 25, sorry. I want to discuss
Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, because I think there are a lot of good things going to
happen with Bill 29.
This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
for people who are home listening because it is not your usual debate.
As my colleague referenced, it is like arguing over an agreement.
There is some posturing going on here, different positions around the
bill and what has taken place here, but I think people listening can weed
through some of the things that are being said here, and I think it is quite
evident that there was a procedural error made.
Mr. Speaker, I think credit to party leaders and House
leaders who got together and came to an agreement that what this is about here
is a mistake was made, but we have to think about the people who have put their
names forward. We have to think
about the people out there, the volunteers, the investments, and the planning
around by-elections, and the importance that once it is called, that people get
an opportunity to do their work, and these particular districts, the two
districts, Trinity – Bay de Verde and Corner Brook, would have an opportunity to
have representation. Certainly, full
credit to the leaders and the House leaders who recognize fully that what
occurred was a mistake, there was an agreement, and it is important to move
forward.
Now today there are some who want to get it in the
record and so on – and that is okay, Mr. Speaker, that is fine, but I think what
is important for the people of the Province to understand here is that there was
a mistake and the leaders of our political parties agreed.
That does not happen very often, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you if there was something done wrong here, you would not get
agreement today, you would not have got agreement to allow this to move forward;
but there was an acknowledgement, a recognition, and that is what is important
here. That is why I am going to
support Bill 25; because it was a decision that protected public interests, it
was a decision that protected people involved in the political process, the
democratic process, all encompassed here.
There are times when we have to have these discussions and debates, and
it is always nice to know that we can end up on the right side of a particular
issue.
So that said, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add my
voice to this. I will certainly be
supporting Bill 25, and for the people of the Province to kind of listen to
everything that is being said here today.
The reality is that a mistake was made.
The party leaders had come to an agreement to move forward.
Today, we are kicking this around quite a bit.
I am not sure that the people of the Province expected to see a lengthy
debate on something like this today in anticipation of the fall setting and what
could come forward; nonetheless, we all reserve that right, as do the Opposition
parties, and we look forward in the days to come to getting into some issues,
and certainly in the by-elections, encourage the people of the Province, and
particularly those districts to get out and vote and support the candidates who
are out there knocking on doors and trying to do their best to represent their
parties.
Mr. Speaker, on that note, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I take pleasure rising in my place again on behalf of
the people of St. John's East to talk about this issue.
I think there is a recognition here that some things can happen that are
caused by human error, and some things can happen probably because of timing.
I do not know whether it was the case of government
waiting for the very last second to call this by-election.
I think deep down the people of this Province knew that once a member
resigned that there were strict timings that were in place and that by-elections
were going to be happening on particular dates.
I think they are smart enough here in this Province that they can
actually figure out that a by-election is going to be happening at a certain
date.
We all know that it is the responsibility of the
government here to be calling that particular date that falls within a
particular timeline; that, there is no question.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there is something here that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador really wanted to say here.
I think it is four words: get on with it.
Either way on November 25, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are
going to have their say in which way they are going to vote in these two
particular districts.
Do we all recognize that there might be a problem with
the act? Yes, sure, there might be.
It might be time to go ahead and revisit the act.
It might be a good time for an all-party committee.
I do not know if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be
engaged enough in that because, Mr. Speaker, they are too busy out there trying
to work and do everything else. They
trust us to try to go ahead and do the right thing on their behalf.
The whole purpose of revisiting Bill 25 here today was
to try to correct an error that might have been caused possibly by human error,
possibly by government, I do not know.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I will leave you with the thought the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador just want us to get on with it.
There are much tighter issues that we have to deal with in the Province
next to this.
We all recognize democracy as a right, the right to
vote, and the right of the independent to be placed on the ballot.
We are lucky in some cases that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
understand that. The simple fact is
that they just want us to get on with it.
Mr. Speaker, I will finish up on that particular point.
Hopefully, we might be able to come together in the future and probably
form an all-party committee and probably deal with the Elections Act in the
future.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to stand on my
feet now for the first time in this session to speak to Bill 25, An Act to Amend
the Elections Act, 1991. Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to prolong this too much.
I know there have been a lot of points made here on all sides by all
parties. At the risk of sounding
repetitive, though, I do want to echo some of the commentary, particularly my
colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, made, as it relates to the role,
first of all, that we all have in this House of Assembly, as it relates to the
passage of legislation, as it relates to the debate of legislation, and
certainly our role in it, our right to participate, and really we should be
participating in it.
Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation we
know, as has been said many times now, this is a result of an error that
occurred. Now, when we talk about
the error we have some members certainly opposite who are basically trying to
pin that error on the bureaucrats and so on, and I think that we would say that
perhaps if the by-elections had been called in a timely manner, if they did not
wait until the last hour to call them, perhaps then the pressure would not have
been on, and even if they never got gazetted that day, perhaps they could have
got gazetted the next day.
They had sixty days, if they had to wait forty days and
call it, even if it did not get gazetted on that day, they could have gazetted
it on the forty-first day. If they
had to call it on the fiftieth day, they could have done it on the fifty-first
day, and so on and so on and so on.
The fact of the matter is that they left it right until the very last minute,
and that is what caused it to happen.
The rationale as to why it got left until the last
minute I guess is up for debate. I
think there are a lot of people, if you talk to people out there, they would
think there was a lot of perhaps political maneuvering around when the
by-elections got called and so on and that is what led to this problem – and of
course, that depends on who you ask.
I guess we will never know. Only
those who waited to the last minute actually know the rationale as to why they
did it. Of course, we know that
would be the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the bigger point related to this that
I want to make – and again, I my colleague for Burgeo – La Poile sort of made
this point, but I want to echo it – is that as elected members, we have a duty
and a responsibility to debate legislation.
Now, whether that legislation is a minor amendment, whether that
legislation is considered housekeeping by definition or not, or if it is some
wide sweeping piece of legislation that is going to have a huge impact on the
people of this Province, regardless of what
type of legislation, regardless of the size of the amendment or the piece of
legislation, we still have responsibility, as elected members, to ensure that we
have our say, to ensure that the legislation brought forward is the best piece
of legislation possible for the people of the Province.
Mr.
Speaker, I said in the last session, I will say again, as one elected member I
have every intention to have my say, to have it in Hansard for the record, on
every single piece of legislation that comes forward.
So if there are five pieces that come forward, ten, twenty, thirty,
whatever the government plans on bringing forward, I will say in advance that I
will be on my feet for every single piece of that legislation, every one of them
I am speaking to it. I am not
sitting down. Despite the fact that
some people might not want to hear us all speak on it, we have that right.
We have that responsibility, and that is exactly what I intend on doing.
I have
to say, I did feel some of the members opposite who spoke, and their commentary
was fine, was respectful, was all good, explaining it, and I have no issue with
that. I did feel, though, there were
a couple of times when a couple of members spoke, it was almost like – I think
my colleague used the term scolded – being scolded for having the gall to
actually stand on my feet and participate in a democratic process.
I would say to anybody who has an issue with that, well I guess you are
going to have to be disappointed because I am going to continue to do so.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, if we wanted to take that approach to legislation, we could always
argue, why debate any legislation?
No matter what the legislation is the government has the numbers, they have the
majority. If you wanted to look at
it that way, government can come in here, just take all of the legislation, put
it all on the table, go first reading, second reading, third reading, and we
would just sit here. We would say
nothing, because they have the numbers, they are going to vote for it anyway.
They are just going to do whatever they like, and people could argue they
are going to do that anyway.
At the
very least, we hold out the hope that if we stand up and we debate legislation,
that maybe something will click.
Maybe there will be an idea that will come from this side of the House, whether
it be from the Official Opposition, whether it be from the Third Party.
There might be something said that might cause government to pause and
say, do you know what? We never
thought about that, maybe we should make this change.
Now, I doubt they will do it, but who knows.
At the very least it gives us, as members, the opportunity to have our
say, to have it recorded in Hansard as was said.
So that in days gone in the future, or as years go by, someone can look
back and say a piece of legislation was passed, this person spoke and I know why
they voted the way they did.
Now, as
has been said as well, this legislation is necessary.
An error occurred, a significant error occurred and we need to put this
piece of legislation in place to retroactively go back and correct the mistake
so that we can carry out the by-elections in Trinity – Bay de Verde, we can
carry out the by-election in Humber East, and it will be done properly, it will
be done legally. It will be done
without court challenge and additional cost to the people.
Most importantly, so the people of those districts can have their
by-elections, elect a person of their choice to represent them in this House of
Assembly.
That is
really what it is all about. It is
important that we do it. It is
important that we all support it. We
do support it, but in supporting it, in supporting this piece of legislation to
correct this error, which we all support, it is also important that we point out
why we support it. It is important
that we point out what led to this legislation, that we point out we have
concerns about how this process went.
We are supporting the legislation because it is a necessary thing to do,
but we also want to point out the issues we have around it and how it came to
pass.
It is
important that we have the opportunity to stand in this House and do that.
That is what everybody here, I think, is doing.
That is what I am doing, and I want it on the record.
That is why I am standing up to speak to it.
As I said, I will continue to do so on each and every piece of
legislation. If somebody does not
like it, well I guess that is just too bad.
That is my right. That is
what I was elected to do, that is what I intend to do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for St. John's East was most succinct when he stood up and
spoke and said this is much ado about nothing.
We just heard, for the last eight minutes, a member talking about it is
going to be on the record for people in the future who will look back and see
exactly what he said on this issue.
I do not think too many people, Mr. Speaker, are going to look back and read
what he said on this issue because what he just said for the last eight minutes
really did not make a lot of sense.
We are not debating anything here.
We are having a conversation, it sounds like to me, about the process.
Mr.
Speaker, mistakes were made. We know
what happened. We know exactly how
it happened. All of the leaders of
each of the parties decided that there would be a remedy to this situation.
We are dealing with the remedy today, Mr. Speaker.
Here we are today in the House of Assembly, I am sure everybody in the
House is going to support this.
In this
circumstance, Mr. Speaker, we could be spending more valuable time debating
issues that are more important to the people of the Province.
I am certainly sure there are people on the opposite side who have issues
about this and that, and more things as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to get it up there and not belabour the point, and just say
that I am not going to waste anybody else's time as well.
I will let the next member on the other side of the House come in and
have a word as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. minister speaks
now he will automatically close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Recreation – Rural Development.
MR. KING:
Rural Development, not
recreation.
The
Member for the Bay of Islands is going to fight for his recreation grant here
this year. The Member for Bay of
Islands, pay attention, I am talking about you.
I said this year your fight for the recreation grant is going over there.
MR. JOYCE:
What?
MR. KING:
It is split off from Tourism
and Culture. Your fight for the
recreation grant this year is with the minister of seniors and aging.
I am just pointing out the narrow scope of my department.
Tourism,
Culture and Recreation has been split, I was explaining to him.
I said as an example, the Member for the Bay of Islands will look for
recreation grants from the new department over here.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
just going to be a moment. Members
have, I think, exhausted to no end really, what we are doing here.
We are coming together, and hopefully united.
I think I am hearing that the members will support this bill to make it a
retroactive decision that will apply to the calling of two by-elections in
Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber East as a result of the writ and a calling of
the by-elections not being gazetted, as is currently the required process, or at
least one interpretation of the current process.
My
speaking now will bring this to a close.
I would ask members to support that and then we will move it through to
Committee.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the said bill be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read
the second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991”, read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 25)
MR. KING:
Are you going to recognize
me?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
leave from my colleagues opposite, I move that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said Bill 25.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this 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 Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991”.
(Bill 25)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's North.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair –
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
there is some confusion about who has the floor.
I do not know if that is correct, Mr. Chair, that I have fifteen hours
left to speak.
Since we
sat down to discuss Bill 25, we have heard all sorts of things from people.
I did not hear anybody get called out on relevance, so it must be
relevant, and maybe I will ask some questions about these things; but you heard
members talk about the relevance of this bill to proportional representation, to
increasing the voter turnout in districts, to all-party committees.
I heard the hon. Deputy Premier get up and talk about the government's
voter education programs and the relevance of Bill 25 to that.
I do not
dispute that they are all very interesting issues, important issues that we
might debate and discuss here in the House of Assembly, but I do not see any
relevance to any of those issues to the direct language here in Bill 25.
We have heard a lot of ministers across the way basically brush this bill
off as some sort of waste of time. I
do not think it was a waste of time.
It was also implied somehow that the party leaders, the caucus leaders, had some
meeting and agreement and that we somehow should not violate this gentleman's
agreement by getting up and contributing to the debate.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition did not give us any direction about sitting
down, being quiet, and shutting up and not participating in this debate and
discussion –
CHAIR:
I ask the hon. member to
speak to the amendment to the bill, please.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
That is
why, I think, we all over here took an opportunity to say a few words about why
we think that this bill ended up here today that this is why we spent the entire
afternoon, the first day back after the House was recessed for months, and we
had the minister over there, Mr. Chair, say just a few minutes that this is much
ado about nothing, while the hon. Government House Leader got up initially and
said that this protects people from court challenges about this legislation –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. member that he speaks to the amendment of the bill or I will ask the
hon. member to sit, please.
MR. KIRBY:
When the hon. Government
House Leader stood up to speak to this bill, Bill 25, initially, he talked about
the fact that there could be a challenge in court.
Someone mentioned that there could be a challenge in court to overturn
the two by-elections that were improperly gazetted and, thus, improperly called
according to the procedure, the statutory requirement of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We had
the minister over there a minute ago saying that it was much ado about nothing.
What I
am saying, Mr. Chair, is that I do not believe that.
I think we should ensure that elections are called properly.
We should not wait until the eleventh hour for them to be called.
We should not wait and wait and wait day after day when there are sixty
days to call the by-elections, and we should not, as I said initially in my
comments, blame it all on somebody else when those who called the by-election
get it wrong. People should take
responsibility for what it is that they have done and not try to slough it off
on the bureaucracy, people who are working hard for Executive Council.
I just
wanted to drive that home because bill is either important or it is not because
if government is bringing legislation that is not important to the floor of the
House of Assembly, then we have to call into question why they are sitting over
there at all, Mr. Chair. That is
what I am raising.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, people watching need to understand why it is necessary to do this, why it
is necessary that the Elections Act, which is 122 pages long and section 58,
which we are amending, was an amendment to the Elections Act that was passed by
this government in 2004. This
government should be fully familiar of section 58 which they are now seeking to
amend.
They
want to amend section 58 of the Elections Act to fix a mistake that they made.
If they would stand up and say – and it would only be necessary for one
minister to say that and debate would close – we made a mistake, it is on us,
help us fix it, we would help you.
They do not want to do that. They
want to make a quiet little deal.
They want to get the thing pushed through today.
We are all in agreement that it needs to be done today.
They
want to pass a piece of legislation that would be retroactive.
Where did we hear that word before?
We heard retroactive only a few months ago in the whistleblower
legislation when they said you could not pass retroactive legislation.
This is a piece of retroactive legislation.
This
bill is to pass retroactively and why is that?
The reason is, Mr. Chair, if you go to section 58, which we are about to
amend, it says. “The day of polling to be fixed by the proclamation required
under section 57” – which is the section before that – “shall be a day not less
than 21 clear days from the date of the proclamation nor more than 30 clear
days.”
That
means from the date of calling the election, the government did not have just
twenty-one days. First of all, they
had a sixty-day window when they could have called the election any time during
the sixty days. Then they had a
window of anywhere from twenty-one days to thirty days.
Mr.
Chair, they waited until the very last day to call both by-elections and then
either neglected, or forgot, or did not realize that they had to be proclaimed.
Then they were proclaimed on the next day, the next day being November 4.
From November 4 to November 25 it must be clear days.
The legislation says clear days so that means every single day must count
except for the date which the event falls upon.
That is straight statute construction.
They
thought they called it on November 3 for November 25, when in fact they did not
get it out the door until November 4.
Clearly it was a mistake. How
big of a mistake? Well, big enough
of a mistake that not only would the by-elections be casting it out as being
unlawful if we were not to go through with this – which we will go through with
this; we will pass this. It means
that the entire Elections Act, section 58 that this government passed in 2004 –
because they did not like the way elections were being run at that time; they
had a beef with the government before.
They introduced this act so they would clean up the Elections Act to suit
themselves. Even then, they did not
get it right.
What we
have now is we have this government coming before the House, coming before the
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and asking the Opposition
members for co-operation and collaboration to correct a mistake that they made.
If they would simply say we made a mistake, sorry about that; will you
help us fix it? We would say yes.
They want to stand in this House and they want to blame hard-working
bureaucratic support people who have called election after election after
election and always got it right.
They will not accept any responsibility.
That is
the problem with this government, the arrogance and refusal to accept
responsibility. You have to
acknowledge first that you made a mistake.
Mr. Chair, this government refuses to acknowledge that it makes any
mistakes whatsoever. If it would do
that, I suspect that people would be a lot more forgiving and would say anybody
could make a mistake.
For
minister after minster after minister after minister to stand in this House this
afternoon and say we did not do anything wrong, someone made a mistake, well no,
someone did not make a mistake. It
is like a child going off to school and saying the dog ate my homework.
The dog did not eat your homework and you cannot blame it on the
bureaucrats.
It is a
mistake that came about because this government procrastinated until the
sixtieth day, and then they wanted the election called in the shortest possible
time of twenty-one days. If they had
said we will call it in twenty-three or twenty-four days, being gazetted the
very next day would have been fine.
They ran it out as long as they could because they did not want to face the
people in a by-election, so it would be as short as it possibly could be.
You
develop a habit, Mr. Chair, of having all the good news made public and all the
bad news made private by calling things at the last minute, sneaking away and
not accepting any responsibility, which is what they are trying to do here.
That is why they have such a loss of confidence by the people of this
Province.
Mr.
Chair, clearly I am going to support this bill because it is in the public
interest to do so, but this government should not walk away and pretend to the
people that this was not another one of their mistakes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I had not intended to speak again on this, I think I had said my piece
last time. I am just prompted to
make a quick comment.
As I
indicated when I spoke earlier, this is an important piece of legislation,
regardless if government wants to acknowledge it or not.
There was a serious error made that we have to go back retroactively and
correct because of that error. That
is government's error; it is not the bureaucrat's error.
Mr.
Chair, as an elected member I have the right to stand up and bring this forward
so people understand my perspective when I am voting on this.
To hear the Minister of Environment and Conservation stand up and say it
is much to do about nothing, well, that speaks volumes.
Maybe when he was in his previous department that was the attitude he
took with the blue zones. Maybe that
is the attitude he is taking now with the people of Ocean Pond, that it is much
to do about nothing.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
pleased to stand again and have a couple of minutes in Committee to speak to
this legislation. I certainly
appreciate all the comments from members on this side of the House, as well as
members opposite. Some have given
very impassioned speeches here today. I
am surprised, but impressed, I have to say.
I look forward to more extensive legislation to see what that brings.
As has
been said on a number of occasions, Mr. Chair, what we are talking about here is
correcting a potential procedural error, we will call it.
One of the things that have not been said a lot today is that there is
some advice that suggests perhaps we could have proceeded the way without doing
this fix.
The
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, in particular, believes that it was
unnecessary to do what we are doing today and in fact that we could proceed and
that everything was legitimate. The
concern, however, was raised that it leaves the potential – because of the
failure to gazette the calling of the by-elections and the dropping of the writ,
because of the failure to do that – for someone to challenge the results of the
by-election.
I
listened earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber Valley.
He makes a very important point that not many have also raised here
today, which is correct. It is not
only about the three political parties here, it is about anyone else outside of
the parties.
It is
one thing to say, well fine, all three parties agree, but he is correct when he
asserts that we have to cover all bases to ensure that we are not just talking
about three political parties. There
could in fact be independent candidates with no particular affiliation at all
who would choose to offer themselves.
If in fact they did that and felt then that there was some opportunity to
call for this to be invalid, then they would certainly be outside of any
agreement or any understanding amongst the three parties.
Having
said all that, it was felt that collectively, by the two leaders opposite and
myself, taking the advice of the Clerk of the Executive Council, perhaps the
most appropriate route to take would be to have this debate here today, and to
pass a piece of legislation that speaks specifically and only to the
by-elections in Trinity – Bay de Verde and Humber East.
That is what we are talking about here today, nothing more.
We have
also identified – the Leader of the Third Party, the Leader of the Opposition,
and myself, and other members have picked up on it I note today as well – that
there may be some opportunity, some need, and some desire at some point to
revisit the Elections Act itself and perhaps remove what we have now as a
dual-track process. Right now, once
the writ is dropped it goes in one direction to the electoral office which
proceeds with the call of the election, and the wheels get set in motion;
whereas on the other side, the notification goes to Legislative Council which is
then required to gazette the call.
That is the piece that was not done in this particular case.
There is
some question as to whether in fact maybe at some point in time down the road we
need to change that to be similar to – I am not certain, but I think most other
provinces in Canada have a single process, not the way we do it.
There has been discussion about whether we may move in that direction.
I certainly would not be adverse to that myself if that is where we want
to be.
That is
essentially what we are doing here today.
I am pleased to speak to that.
I am encouraged at my colleagues across the way.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible).
MR. KING:
The Member for Bay of Islands
is shouting at me with his words of support for this bill as well.
I want to thank him for that, and thank all members who have contributed
to the debate today.
CHAIR:
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 Elections
Act, 1991.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the Committee rise and
report Bill 25.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 25.
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, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to
report Bill 25 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and they have directed him to report Bill 25 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a
third time?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, with leave from members opposite, that Bill
25 be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 25 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 25 be read a third time?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.
(Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that it do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991”, read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time I would like to call from the Order Paper, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very pleased to be able to stand here in the House of Assembly today and speak
to the Address in Reply. I am going
to concentrate on my district.
I would
like to welcome everybody back to the House of Assembly.
It is certainly good to get back and get down to business.
It has been an interesting year in my district, both politically and
economically, but I have to commend the people in Labrador West, they are taking
it all in stride.
First, I
would like to address Wabush Mines with Cleveland-Cliffs, the present owners.
In February, they announced they would be going into what is known as a
warm idle. A warm idle basically
means the mine itself is going into – they go into layoff mode, but everything
is kept up and running. They went
into warm idle, much to the dismay, I guess, of their employees, over 400 people
were affected by this. It was a bit
of a surprise because there was really no warning.
Cleveland-Cliffs had an option of giving a twelve-week notice to their employees
that they would be going into warm idle.
Rather than exercise the right of giving a twelve-week notice, they gave
twelve weeks pay in lieu of notice.
That certainly was taken by surprise, by the employees, as well as the
municipalities and the provincial government.
I have
to commend this government with their quick reaction when Cleveland-Cliffs went
into warm idle in February. Within a
matter of twenty-four hours, the Premier and five ministers were on the ground
in Wabush. We worked diligently with
the unions and with the municipality to make sure that everything went into
place to try and make the transition as palatable as possible.
For
example, the minister at the time, and the present Minister of Advanced
Education and Skills, took the lead on the file and very quickly had extra human
resources on the ground there to help during the transition to offer the proper
type of block training that was necessary, so that we could get as many people
who were affected by this warm idle back into the workforce as fast as possible.
Also, to get a lot of the employees who were affected back into the
education system because that option was there.
Quite a few people took advantage of this.
It certainly paid off in dividends, I find, for the municipality.
Most of
the employees at Wabush Mines today have found employment.
Some within the region, either through other local industry, other mining
industries that are there, local companies that supply to the other mines that
are in the area. Also, the word of
fly-in, fly-out, two years ago in my district was a bad word.
Many people have come to realize now that sometimes it is an option that
at certain times can get you through a transition period.
That is
exactly what a lot of the employees at Wabush Mines are doing now.
They are flying in, they are flying out.
Many of them within the Province, which I am glad to say either at the
Muskrat Falls Project or at the Voisey's Bay Project; or they are flying in and
out to different projects here on the Island portion of the Province.
I am
glad to see that many of the residents have not left the area permanently.
I am also glad to see that they have not left the Province.
They are still working and contributing
to the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This, we
are hoping, will be a transition. We
do have a company that is interested and looking at the revitalization of Wabush
Mines. The Minister of Natural
Resources has been working diligently on that file.
I have to commend him, he has kept me abreast of everything that has been
happening with Cleveland-Cliffs and the other interested company to make sure
that everything is being done as it should be done, properly, and hopefully we
will eventually see Wabush Mines back in full operation.
One of
the other things that has really had an effect on my district is Alderon.
As we all know, Alderon is another mining project that was showing great
prosperity. I read an article in a
magazine just this morning, in Atlantic
Business, and it said if you were to look at the CEO and President of the
Alderon project, he should be the envy of everybody in the mining industry.
Unfortunately, because of the downturn in the economy, this is not the
case; but we are still very, very positive that Alderon is going to be a go.
Many of
the people in my district, especially with the Wabush Mines downturn, felt that
the Alderon project would be their saviour, would be the one that would bring
everything back. They felt that a
lot of the employees at the Scully Mines project who had been displaced in the
employment field would now be picked up with Alderon and business would go on as
usual. Also, Alderon was actively
looking at the Scully Mine project itself.
Because of the economic downturn right now in the iron ore industry, that
also has sort of slowed down.
Again,
in my district, and myself as the MHA, I feel very confident that Alderon will
eventually come into the market.
China is still a very strong component in the mining market there and we are
hoping we will eventually see where Alderon will come on full stream and move
forward with that. The resiliency of
the residents within my district is unbelievable, because from day one we have
seen they have had a positive attitude.
They believe it is going to come back and this is just another bump in
the road.
I
remember in 1986, the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, the department
was called Mines and Energy, and the minister at the time was in the district,
and he spoke at a dinner I went to.
I remember he commented – and this stuck with me, not just through my experience
in politics but in my experience as a former business person.
He said: you are living in a mining town.
You have two mining towns here in the middle of nowhere, so you are
considered a one-industry town and mining is like a rollercoaster. It is
great when you sit at the bottom at the beginning of that rollercoaster and you
feel yourself being brought up and brought up and the excitement and the thrill
is there that this is going to be exhilarating, and then when you get to the
point that you feel that exhilaration is going to be there, it takes mere
seconds for you to be back at the bottom.
That minister at the time said: You go back up just as
fast. So hold on, keep your
seatbelts on, because it is going to get better.
That is what we are feeling right now in Labrador West, that this is just
a little bump in the rollercoaster.
We are going to go back up and we are going to have a great ride when we get
there.
There are many other things happening in Labrador West
that make it positive for the future of Labrador West.
The Julienne Lake deposit is a huge deposit that is in the works right
now. Again, through the Department
of Natural Resources, the government is working on moving that forward.
It is said to be bigger than the IOC, with their expansion included.
Everybody thought that for many, many years IOC was the be-all and
end-all of Labrador West, and here we are now making discoveries that are
actually even bigger than the IOC project.
The IOC expansion is another one that we saw the
expansion; the Genesis project was moving forward.
We all felt that they were going go from 16 million tons to 23 million
tons a year. Again, the economy
dictates the necessity of that. The
economy right now, with the slowdown in the economy, is saying that is not going
to happen. We need to slow it down a
little bit and wait.
The glory of all of that is that the infrastructure for
those expansions, when they actually happen, these mining companies have
invested in the infrastructure. I
remember a year-and-a-half ago in my district being very, very nervous because
the average home went from being $85,000-$90,000 for an ordinary three-bedroom
bungalow to $350,000-$400,000. There
are homes there that have sold, new homes that have been built, for upwards to
$600,000.
That always, in a position that we here as Members of
the House of Assembly sit in and representing the people in our different
districts, when you see an increase like that it makes you nervous because you
always wonder what is going to happen when there is a downturn.
One of the good things that we saw in Labrador West was
that the companies themselves invested in the community.
In order for them to expand and to see the expansions that were on the
horizons, the infrastructure that they invested in and built in is now in place.
For example, IOC spent about $1.6 billion in preparing for the Genesis
project. We have a 108-unit
apartment building built to get ready for the expansion.
We have another fifty-four-unit apartment building built to get ready for
the expansion.
We had bunk houses that were brought in during the
construction of all this expansion.
Some of those are now reverted into permanent housing for the companies just in
case. It is not all temporary
housing now; some of it is there, if it is needed, so that the companies can
have it at their disposal. This all
adds to the economy of the community.
I remember at the beginning of it all that I sat as a
town counsellor. We were nervous
that if we allowed temporary housing to come in we were going to have a
permanent fly-in, fly-out workforce in the district and in the communities.
This government made sure that did not happen.
Working collaboratively with the municipal governments, we made sure that
the temporary workforce that was fly-in, fly-out remained temporary.
There were very strict conditions put on all of that.
The infrastructure right now in the community is there
for when the expansion happens. The
good part of having that infrastructure there is that there will come a level
now where people can afford to live in the area.
We went through a period where we could not afford to have new people
move into the area; therefore, it is very hard to recruit and retain new
employees. We are at a point now
where we are going to keep that. I
am really pleased to see that.
In my neighbouring District of Lake Melville, you are
seeing the same thing there now that you actually saw in my district seven or
eight years ago. The people in Lake
Melville quite often refer to the people in Labrador West as to where do we go;
what do we do? They have some
experience. What has happened in my
district I think is helping other districts, such as Lake Melville in the
Province, to get ready for the booms and the busts.
One of the other things that I would like to comment on
is the third transmission line that this government agreed to bring through to
Labrador West from the Upper Churchill, Churchill Falls.
When we agreed that we would bring in the third transmission line, the
third transmission line was needed because of the expansions that were happening
within the region. There was a major
fear that unless the third transmission line came in the municipalities
themselves, number one, would not be able to attract new businesses; number two,
that Alderon, the mining exploration in Alderon, would not have the power that
it would need.
The government agreed they would build the third
transmission line on one condition, that Alderon would have all of its finances
in place. Although, the third
transmission line is now put on hold it is only put on hold until Alderon
secures their finances. That was
made clear from day one. It has not
changed, so I am really pleased to see that is still there.
One of the big fears – and again I look at the
government that I sit as a member of – in Wabush especially is that in Wabush,
as they do in Labrador City, they work with the mining industries.
The mining industries do not pay taxes.
The mining industries pay grants in lieu of taxes.
This government is working with Wabush now.
The grant in lieu of taxes that Wabush is actually
losing per year is $2.3 million.
They actually have to do a budget this year of saying we just lost $2.3 million.
They know that is gone. I am
very pleased to say that I have been working with the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs. He has
made this a priority. We are looking
at how we can alleviate some of that pressure for the Town of Wabush, how we can
work with them as we have worked with other municipalities throughout the
Province, Stephenville being an example, Grand Falls-Windsor being another
example.
This government made a commitment – the five ministers
and the Premier of the day sat in Wabush and they made a commitment to the
people of Wabush that you will be treated no differently.
They are working with the municipality now to try to make sure that
actually happens.
Again, I am not blowing the horn of government.
That is what we are supposed to do when we are here, we are representing
government; but I can speak very passionately because I am living there.
When you are a minister, as I have been, and you stand in the House of
Assembly, you represent the whole Province; but when we stand as an MHA and you
are representing your district, you can speak passionately about that.
I am living in that district.
I am seeing the hardships that are there and I am also seeing how government is
working with the municipality, working with the companies to try to make that
better. I think that is important.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
We
have Muskrat Falls. I guess I did
not realize it until Wabush Mines closed.
Muskrat Falls is having a major effect right across the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I would
venture to say that I
could guess that of the forty-eight districts in the House of Assembly that are
represented here, every one of us as MHAs has at least one person working in
Muskrat Falls.
I know
there are districts, and I look across at my colleagues in other parts of
Labrador, that Muskrat Falls has been a saving grace in their districts when it
comes to employment. There are many,
many people and it is because of a lot of the stringent rules with IBAs and
stuff that government has put in place that Labradorians, Aboriginals come
first. That was important to this
government. It was very important to
this government that if it is in Labrador and the resources are in Labrador,
then the Aboriginals in Labrador and the Labradorians should have the first
opportunities, and we are doing that.
When it
comes to certain skilled trades, you cannot take a non-skilled tradesperson and
put them into a skilled trade; it is not safe.
Where the opportunities are there for the Aboriginals and for the
Labradorians to move forward in Muskrat Falls – and I have witnessed it.
I have been down there, I have seen it, and I will guarantee you it is
one of the best things that can ever happen to Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
I am running out of time
shortly. The last thing I would like
to touch on is I have been in Labrador West for thirty-seven years and I was
always one of the advocates who said we are not a one-industry town.
I still
say we are not a one-industry town. We
certainly depend on a main industry, as many municipalities and districts
throughout the Province do. I am
very pleased to say that over the last five years one of the major changes I
have seen in the district and especially in Wabush is their industrial park.
In a lot
of the benefits that have been made with the emerging mining industry that has
been happening, even though some of it now is idle, some is put on hold, some is
moving forward – and I use Tata Steel as an example in Schefferville.
All of their supplies have to be purchased through Newfoundland and
Labrador. The most feasible place
for them to purchase their supplies is Western Labrador.
The
Wabush Industrial Park is a prime example of seeing a success story of where
those benefits and those agreements come to dividends.
We have an industrial park in Wabush that has grown tenfold.
We have one company there that worked out of Montreal which three years
ago built an 80,000 square foot warehouse in the Wabush Industrial Park.
Now all of their supplies, rather than coming from Montreal, come from
Wabush. That is an example of
diversifying industry. That is an
example of saying we are not just a one-industry town, and we can make this
work, we can diversify it to bring it in and bring in new economy and bring in
new jobs. We are seeing some of
that.
So
again, I thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to
stand here and certainly to concentrate on my district today.
It is a district, it is very resilient, the people there have a great
tenacity, and I have no doubt that – in the mining industry you are either doing
very well or you are doing very poor, and right now we are going to move
forward.
So,
thank you very much, and I look forward to getting up and speaking again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.